An R and S-PlusВ® Companion to Multivariate Analysis

Springer Texts in Statistics Advisors: George Casella Stephen Fienberg Ingram Olkin Brian S. Everitt An R and S-PL...

Author: Brian S. Everitt

189 downloads 961 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Springer Texts in Statistics Advisors: George Casella

Stephen Fienberg

Ingram Olkin

Brian S. Everitt

An R and S-PLUS® Companion to Multivariate Analysis With 59 Figures

Brian Sidney Everitt, BSc, MSc Emeritus Professor, King’s College, London, UK Editorial Board George Casella Biometrics Unit Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-7801 USA

Stephen Fienberg Department of Statistics Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 USA

Ingram Olkin Department of Statistics Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 USA

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Everitt, Brian An R and S-PLUS® companion to multivariate analysis. (Springer texts in statistics) 1. S-PLUS (Computer ﬁle) 2. Multivariate analysis-Computer programs. 3. Multivariate analysis-Data processing I. Title 519.5 35 0285 ISBN 1852338822 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Everitt, Brian. An R and S-PLUS® companion to multivariate analysis/Brian S. Everitt. p. cm.—(Springer texts in statistics) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-85233-882-2 (alk. paper) 1. Multivariate analysis. 2. S-Plus. 3. R (Computer program language) I. Title. II. Series. QA278.E926 2004 519.5 35—dc22

2004054963

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers. ISBN 1-85233-882-2 Springer Science+Business Media springeronline.com © Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005 The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a speciﬁc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made. Whilst we have made considerable efforts to contact all holders of copyright material contained in this book, we have failed to locate some of them. Should holders wish to contact the Publisher, we will be happy to come to some arrangement with them. Printed in the United States of America Typeset by Techset Composition Limited 12/3830-543210 Printed on acid-free paper

SPIN 10969380

To my dear daughters, Joanna and Rachel

Preface

The majority of data sets collected by researchers in all disciplines are multivariate. In a few cases it may be sensible to isolate each variable and study it separately, but in most cases all the variables need to be examined simultaneously in order to fully grasp the structure and key features of the data. For this purpose, one or another method of multivariate analysis might be most helpful, and it is with such methods that this book is largely concerned. Multivariate analysis includes methods both for describing and exploring such data and for making formal inferences about them. The aim of all the techniques is, in a general sense, to display or extract the signal in the data in the presence of noise, and to ﬁnd out what the data show us in the midst of their apparent chaos. The computations involved in applying most multivariate techniques are considerable, and their routine use requires a suitable software package. In addition, most analyses of multivariate data should involve the construction of appropriate graphs and diagrams and this will also need to be carried out by the same package. R and S-PLUS® are statistical computing environments, incorporating implementations of the S programming language. Both are powerful, ﬂexible, and, in addition, have excellent graphical facilities. It is for these reasons that they appear in this book. R is available free through the Internet under the General Public License; see R Development Core Team (2004), R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, or visit their website www.R-project.org. S-PLUS is a registered trademark of Insightful Corporation, www.insightful.com. It is distributed in the United Kingdom by Insightful Limited 5th Floor Network House Basing View Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 4HG Tel: +44 (0) 1256 339800 vii

viii

Preface

Fax: +44 (0) 1256 339839 [email protected] and in the United States by Insightful Corporation 1700 Westlake Avenue North Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98109-3044 Tel: (206) 283-8802 Fax: (206) 283-8691 [email protected] We assume that readers have had some experience using either R or S-PLUS, although they are not assumed to be experts. If, however, they require to learn more about either program, we recommend Dalgaard (2002) for R and Krause and Olson (2002) for S-PLUS. An appendix very brieﬂy describes some of the main features of the packages, but is intended primarily as nothing more than an aide memoire. One of the most powerful features of both R and S-PLUS (particularly the former) is the increasing number of functions being written and made available by the user community. In R, for example, CRAN (Comprehensive RArchive Network) collects libraries of functions for a vast variety of applications. Details of the libraries that can be used within R can be found by typing in help.start(). Additional libraries can be accessed by clicking on Packages followed by Load package and then selecting from the list presented. In this book we concentrate on what might be termed the “core” multivariate methodology, although mention will be made of recent developments where these are considered relevant and useful. Some basic theory is given for each technique described but not the complete theoretical details; this theory is separated out into “displays.” Suitable R and S-PLUS code (which is often identical) is given for each application. All data sets and code used in the book can be found at http://biostatistics.iop.kcl.ac.uk/publications/everitt/. In addition, this site contains the code for a number of functions written by the author and used at a number of places in the book. These can no doubt be greatly improved! After the data ﬁles have been downloaded by the reader, they can be read using the source function R:

name<-source("path")$value

For example, huswif<-source("c:\\allwork\\rsplus\\chap1huswif.dat")$value

S-PLUS:

name<-source("path")

For example, huswif<-source("c:\\allwork\\rsplus\\chap1huswif.dat")

Preface

ix

Since the output from S-PLUS and R is not their most compelling or attractive feature, such output has often been edited in the text and the results then displayed in a different form from this output to make them more readable; on a few occasions, however, the exact output itself is given. In one or two places the “click-and-point” features of the S-PLUS GUI are illustrated. This book is aimed at students in applied statistics courses at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. It is also hoped that many applied statisticians dealing with multivariate data will ﬁnd something of interest. Since this book contains the word “companion” in the title, prospective readers may legitimately ask “companion to what?” The answer is, to a multivariate analysis textbook that covers the theory of each method in more detail but does not incorporate the use of any speciﬁc software. Some examples are Mardia, Kent, and Bibby (1979), Everitt and Dunn (2002), and Johnson and Wichern (2003). I am very grateful to Dr. Torsten Hothorn for his advice about using R and for pointing out errors in my initial code. Any errors that remain, of course, are entirely due to me. Finally I would like to thank my secretary, Harriet Meteyard, who, as always, provided both expertise and support during the writing of this book. London, UK

Brian S. Everitt

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

1 Multivariate Data and Multivariate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Types of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Summary Statistics for Multivariate Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 Covariances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.4 Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.5 Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 The Multivariate Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 The Aims of Multivariate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 1 4 4 5 5 6 7 9 13 15

2 Looking at Multivariate Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Scatterplots and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 The Convex Hull of Bivariate Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 The Chiplot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 The Bivariate Boxplot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Estimating Bivariate Densities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Representing Other Variables on a Scatterplot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 The Scatterplot Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Three-Dimensional Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Conditioning Plots and Trellis Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 16 17 22 23 25 29 32 33 35 37 40 40

3 Principal Components Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Algebraic Basics of Principal Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41 41 42 xi

xii

Contents

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4

Rescaling Principal Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Choosing the Number of Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calculating Principal Component Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principal Components of Bivariate Data with Correlation Coefﬁcient r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 An Example of Principal Components Analysis: Air Pollution in U.S. Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 46 47 48 49 61 62

4 Exploratory Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Factor Analysis Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Principal Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Estimating the Numbers of Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 A Simple Example of Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Factor Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Estimating Factor Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Two Examples of Exploratory Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.1 Expectations of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.2 Drug Usage by American College Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Comparison of Factor Analysis and Principal Components Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65 65 65 68 69 69 70 71 76 77 77 82

5 Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Examples of Classical Multidimensional Scaling . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Correspondence Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Smoking and Motherhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Hodgkin’s Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91 91 93 96 104 109 111 112 112

6 Cluster Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Measuring Intercluster Dissimilarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 K-Means Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Model-Based Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

115 115 115 118 122 128 134 135

85 88 88 89

Contents

xiii

7 Grouped Multivariate Data: Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Discriminant Function Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Two Groups: Hotellings T 2 Test and Fisher’s Linear Discriminant Function Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Hotellings T 2 Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Fisher’s Linear Discriminant Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 Assessing the Performance of a Discriminant Function . . . . . 7.3 More Than Two Groups: Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and Classiﬁcation Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Multivariate Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Classiﬁcation Functions and Canonical Variates . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

147 147 149 155 156

8 Multiple Regression and Canonical Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Multiple Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Canonical Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157 157 157 160 167 167

9 Analysis of Repeated Measures Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Linear Mixed Effects Models for Repeated Measures Data . . . . . . . . 9.3 Dropouts in Longitudinal Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

171 171 174 190 198 198

Appendix: An Aide Memoir for R and S-PLUS® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Elementary commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Logical Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. List Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Data Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200 200 201 204 205 207 209

137 137 137 137 142 146

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

1

Multivariate Data and Multivariate Analysis

1.1 Introduction Multivariate data arise when researchers measure several variables on each “unit” in their sample. The majority of data sets collected by researchers in all disciplines are multivariate. Although in some cases it may make sense to isolate each variable and study it separately, in the main it does not. In most instances the variables are related in such a way that when analyzed in isolation they may often fail to reveal the full structure of the data. With the great majority of multivariate data sets, all the variables need to be examined simultaneously in order to uncover the patterns and key features in the data. Hence the need for the collection of multivariate analysis techniques with which this book is concerned. Multivariate analysis includes methods that are largely descriptive and others that are primarily inferential. The aim of all the procedures, in a very general sense, is to display or extract any “signal” in the data in the presence of noise, and to discover what the data has to tell us.

1.2 Types of Data Most multivariate data sets have a common form, and consist of a data matrix, the rows of which contain the units in the sample, and the columns of which refer to the variables measured on each unit. Symbolically a set of multivariate data can be represented by the matrix, X, given by ⎡ ⎤ x11 x12 · · · x1q ⎢ ⎥ .. X = ⎣ ... ⎦ . xn1

xn2

···

xnq

where n is the number of units in the sample, q is the number of variables measured on each unit, and xij denotes the value of the j th variable for the ith unit. The units in a multivariate data set will often be individual people, for example, patients in a medical investigation, or subjects in a market research study. But they 1

2

1. Multivariate Data and Multivariate Analysis

can also be skulls, pottery, countries, products, to name only four possibilities. In all cases the units are often referred to simply as “individuals,” a term we shall generally adopt in this book. A hypothetical example of a multivariate data matrix is given in Table 1.1. Here n = 10, q = 7, and, for example, x33 = 135. These data illustrate that the variables that make up a set of multivariate data will not necessarily all be of the same type. Four levels of measurement are often distinguished; • Nominal—Unordered categorical variables. Examples include treatment allocation, the sex of the respondent, hair color, presence or absence of depression, and so on. • Ordinal—Where there is an ordering but no implication of equal distance between the different points of the scale. Examples include social class and self-perception of health (each coded from I to V, say), and educational level (e.g., no schooling, primary, secondary, or tertiary education). • Interval—Where there are equal differences between successive points on the scale, but the position of zero is arbitrary. The classic example is the measurement of temperature using the Celsius or Fahrenheit scales. • Ratio—The highest level of measurement, where one can investigate the relative magnitude of scores as well as the differences between them. The position of zero is ﬁxed. The classic example is the absolute measure of temperature (in Kelvin, for example) but other common examples include age (or any other time from a ﬁxed event), weight and length. The qualitative information in Table 1.1 could have been presented in terms of numerical codes (as often would be the case in a multivariate data set) such that sex = 1 for males and sex = 2 for females, for example, or health = 5 when very good and health = 1 for very poor, and so on. But it is vital that both the user and consumer of these data appreciate that the same numerical codes (1, say) will often convey completely different information. In many statistical textbooks discussion of different types of measurements is often followed by recommendations as to which statistical techniques are suitable Table 1.1 Hypothetical Set of Multivariate Data Individual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sex

Age (yr)

IQ

Depression

Health

Weight (lb)

Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female

21 43 22 86 60 16 NK 43 22 80

120 NK 135 150 92 130 150 NK 84 70

Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

Very good Very good Average Very poor Good Good Very good Average Average Good

150 160 135 140 110 110 120 120 105 100

NOTE: NK = not known.

1.2 Types of Data

3

for each type; for example, analyses of nominal data should be limited to summary statistics such as the number of cases, the mode, and so on. And in the analysis of ordinal data, means and standard deviations are not really suitable. But Velleman and Wilkinson (1993) make the important point that restricting the choice of statistical methods in this way may be a dangerous practice for data analysis; the measurement taxonomy described is often too strict to apply to real-world data. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of measurement, but we take a fairly pragmatic approach to such problems. For example, we will often not agonize over treating variables such as a measure of depression, anxiety, or intelligence as if they were interval-scaled, although strictly they ﬁt into the ordinal category described above. Table 1.1 also illustrates one of the problems often faced by statisticians undertaking statistical analysis in general, and multivariate analysis in particular, namely the presence of missing values in the data, that is, observations and measurements that should have been recorded, but, for one reason or another, were not. Often when faced with missing values, practitioners simply resort to analyzing only complete cases, since this is what most statistical software packages do automatically. In a multivariate analysis, they would, for example, omit any case with a missing value on any of the variables. When the incomplete cases comprise only a small fraction of all cases (say, 5 percent or less) then case deletion may be a perfectly reasonable solution to the missing data problem. But in multivariate data sets in particular, where missing values can occur on any of the variables, the incomplete cases may often be a substantial portion of the entire dataset. If so, omitting them may cause large amounts of information to be discarded, which would clearly be very inefﬁcient. But the main problem with complete-case analysis is that it can lead to a serious bias in both estimation and inference unless the missing data are missing completely at random (see Chapter 9 and Little and Rubin, 1987, for more details). In other words, complete-case analysis implicitly assumes that the discarded cases are like a random subsample. So at the very least complete-case analysis leads to a loss, and perhaps a substantial loss in power, but worse, analyses based on just complete cases might in some cases be misleading. So what can be done? One answer is to consider some form of imputation, the practice of “ﬁlling in” missing data with plausible values. At one level this will solve the missing-data problem and enable the investigator to progress normally. But from a statistical viewpoint careful consideration needs to be given to the method used for imputation; otherwise it may cause more problems than it solves. For example, imputing an observed variable mean for a variable’s missing values preserves the observed sample means, but distorts the covariance structure, biasing estimated variances and covariances toward zero. On the other hand imputing predicted values from regression models tends to inﬂate observed correlations, biasing them away from zero. And treating imputed data as if they were “real” in estimation and inference can lead to misleading standard errors and p-values, since they fail to reﬂect the uncertainty due to the missing data. The most appropriate way to deal with missing values is a procedure suggested by Rubin (1987), known as multiple imputation. This is a Monte Carlo technique

4

1. Multivariate Data and Multivariate Analysis

in which the missing values are replaced by m > 1 simulated versions, where m is typically small (say 3–10). Each of the simulated complete datasets is analyzed by the method appropriate for the investigation at hand, and the results are later combined to produce estimates and conﬁdence intervals that incorporate missingdata uncertainty. Details are given in Rubin (1987) and more concisely in Schafer (1999). An S-PLUS library for multiple imputation is available; see Schimert et al. (2000). The greatest virtues of multiple imputation are its simplicity and its generality. The user may analyze the data by virtually any technique that would be appropriate if the data were complete. However, one should always bear in mind that the imputed values are not real measurements. We do not get something for nothing! And if there is a substantial proportion of the individuals with large amounts of missing data one should clearly question whether any form of statistical analysis is viable.

1.3 Summary Statistics for Multivariate Data In order to summarize a multivariate data set we need to produce summaries for each of the variables separately and also to summarize the relationships between the variables. For the former we generally use means and variances (assuming that we are dealing with continuous variables), and for the latter we usually take pairs of variables at a time and look at their covariances or correlations. Population and sample versions of all of these quantities are now deﬁned.

1.3.1 Means For q variables, the population mean vector is usually represented as µ = [µ1 , µ2 , . . . , µq ], where µi = E(xi ) is the population mean (or expected value as denoted by the E operator in the above) of the ith variable. An estimate of µ , based on n, q-dimensional observations, is x¯ = [x¯1 , x¯2 , . . . , x¯q ], where x¯i is the sample mean of the variable xi . To illustrate the calculation of a mean vector we shall use the data shown in Table 1.2, which shows the heights (millimeters) and ages (years) of both partners in a sample of 10 married couples. We assume that the data are available as the data.frame huswif with variables labelled as shown in Table 1.2. The mean vector for these data can be found directly in R with the mean function and in S-PLUS by using the apply function combined with the mean function; R: S-PLUS:

mean(huswif) apply(huswif,2,mean)

1.3 Summary Statistics for Multivariate Data

5

Table 1.2 Heights and Ages of Husband and Wife in 10 Married Couples Husband age (Hage)

Husband height (Hheight)

Wife age (Wage)

Wife height (Wheight)

1809 1841 1659 1779 1616 1695 1730 1740 1685 1735

43 28 30 57 52 27 52 43 23 25

1590 1560 1620 1540 1420 1660 1610 1580 1610 1590

49 25 40 52 58 32 43 47 31 26

Husband age at ﬁrst marriage (Hagefm) 25 19 38 26 30 23 33 26 26 23

The values that result are: Hage

Hheight

Wage

Wheight

Hagefm

40.3

1728.9

38.0

1578.0

26.9

1.3.2 Variances The vector of population variances can be represented by σ = [σ12 , σ22 , . . . , σq2 ], where σi2 = E(xi − µi )2 . An estimate of σ based on n, q-dimensional observations is s = [s12 , s22 , . . . , sq2 ], where si2 is the sample variance of xi . We can get the variances for the variables in the husbands and wives data set by using the sd function directly in R and again using the apply function combined with the var function in S-PLUS: R: S-PLUS:

sd(huswif)ˆ2 apply(huswif,2,var)

to give Hage

Hheight

Wage

Wheight

Hagefm

130.23

4706.99

164.67

4173.33

29.88

1.3.3 Covariances The population covariance of two variables, xi and xj , is deﬁned by Cov(xi , xj ) = E(xi − µi )(xj − µj ).

6

1. Multivariate Data and Multivariate Analysis

If i = j , we note that the covariance of the variable with itself is simply its variance, and therefore there is no need to deﬁne variances and covariances independently in the multivariate case. The covariance of xi and xj is usually denoted by σij (so the variance of the variable xi is often denoted by σii rather than σi2 ). With q variables, x1 , x2 , . . . , xq , there are q variances and q(q − 1)/2 covariances. In general these quantities are arranged in a q × q symmetric matrix, , where ⎛ ⎞ σ11 σ12 · · · σ1q ⎜σ21 σ22 · · · σ2q ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ =⎜ . .. ⎟. .. .. . ⎝ . . ⎠ . . σq1 σq2 · · · σqq Note that σij = σj i . This matrix is generally known as the variance–covariance matrix or simply the covariance matrix. The matrix is estimated by the matrix S, given by n 1 S= (xi − x¯ )(xi − x¯ ) n−1 i=1

xi

where = [xi1 , xi2 , . . . , xiq ] is the vector of observations for the ith individual. The diagonal of S contains the variances of each variable. The covariance matrix for the data in Table 1.2 is obtained using the var function in both R and S-PLUS, var(huswif)

to give the following matrix of variances (on the main diagonal) and covariances (the off diagonal elements). Hage Hheight Wage Wheight Hagefm

Hage

Hheight

Wage

Wheight

Hagefm

130.23 −192.19 128.56 −436.00 28.03

−192.19 4706.99 25.89 876.44 −229.34

128.56 25.89 164.67 −456.67 21.67

−436.00 876.44 −456.67 4173.33 −8.00

28.03 −229.34 21.67 −8.00 29.88

1.3.4 Correlations The covariance is often difﬁcult to interpret because it depends on the units in which the two variables are measured; consequently, it is often standardized by dividing by the product of the standard deviations of the two variables to give a quantity called the correlation coefﬁcient, ρij , where σij . ρij = √ σii σjj The correlation coefﬁcient lies between −1 and +1 and gives a measure of the linear relationship of the variables xi and xj . It is positive if high values of xi are

1.3 Summary Statistics for Multivariate Data

7

associated with high values of xj and negative if high values of xi are associated with low values of xj . With q variables there are q(q − 1)/2 distinct correlations which may be arranged in a q × q matrix whose diagonal elements are unity. For sample data, the correlation matrix contains the usual estimates of the ρ’s, namely Pearson’s correlation coefﬁcient, and is generally denoted by R. The matrix may be written in terms of the sample covariance matrix S as follows, R = D−1/2 SD−1/2 where D−1/2 = diag(1/si ). In most situations we will be dealing with covariance and correlation matrices of full rank, q, so that both matrices will be nonsingular (i.e., invertible). The correlation matrix for the four variables in Table 1.2 is obtained by using the function cor in both R and S-PLUS, cor(huswif)

to give Hage Hheight Wage Wheight Hagefm

Hage

Hheight

Wage

Wheight

Hagefm

1.00 −0.25 0.88 −0.59 0.45

−0.25 1.00 0.03 0.20 −0.61

0.88 0.03 1.00 −0.55 0.31

−0.59 0.20 −0.55 1.00 −0.02

0.45 −0.61 0.31 −0.02 1.00

1.3.5 Distances The concept of distance between observations is of considerable importance for some multivariate techniques. The most common measure used in Euclidean distance, which for two rows, say row i and row j, of the multivariate data matrix, X, is deﬁned as 1/2 q

dij = (xik − xj k )2 . k=1

We can use the dist function in both R and S-PLUS to calculate these distances for the data in Table 1.2, dis<-dist(huswif)

This can be converted into the required distance matrix by using the function dist2full given in help(dist): dist2full<-function(dis) { n<-attr(dis,"Size") full<-matrix(0,n,n) full[lower.tri(full)]<-dis

8

1. Multivariate Data and Multivariate Analysis

full+t(full) } dis.matrix<-dist2full(dis) round(dis.matrix,digits=2)

The resulting distance matrix is numeric matrix: 10 rows, 10 columns. [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [1,] 0.00 52.55 154.33 60.05 257.56 [2,] 52.55 0.00 193.17 76.57 268.35 [3,] 154.33 193.17 0.00 147.71 206.69 [4,] 60.05 76.57 147.71 0.00 202.60 [5,] 257.56 268.35 206.69 202.60 0.00 [6,] 135.81 177.15 56.52 150.88 255.33 [7,] 82.60 126.16 75.23 86.35 222.10 [8,] 69.76 106.58 92.32 57.81 202.96 [9,] 128.46 164.15 32.40 123.83 206.03 [10,] 79.58 110.28 84.39 78.39 211.81

[,6] [,7] [,8] 135.81 82.60 69.76 177.15 126.16 106.58 56.52 75.23 92.32 150.88 86.35 57.81 255.33 222.10 202.96 0.00 67.61 94.42 67.61 0.00 33.85 94.42 33.85 0.00 51.24 55.31 67.68 80.87 39.28 29.98

[,9] [,10] 128.46 79.58 164.15 110.28 32.40 84.39 123.83 78.39 206.03 211.81 51.24 80.87 55.31 39.28 67.68 29.98 0.00 54.20 54.20 0.00

But this calculation of the distances ignores the fact that the variables in the data set are on different scales, and changing the scales will change the elements of the distance matrix without preserving the rank order of pairwise distances. It makes more sense to calculate the distances after some form of standardization. Here we shall divide each variable by its standard deviation. The necessary R code is #find standard deviations of variables std<-sd(huswif) #use sweep function to divide columns of data matrix #by the appropriate standard deviation huswif.std<-sweep(huswif,2,std,FUN=’’/’’) dis<-dist(huswif.std) dis.matrix<-dist2full(dis) round(dis.matrix,digits=2)

(In S-PLUS std will have to be calculated using apply and var.) The result is the matrix given below numeric matrix: 10 rows, 10 [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [1,] 0.00 2.73 3.51 1.44 [2,] 2.73 0.00 4.66 3.64 [3,] 3.51 4.66 0.00 3.87 [4,] 1.44 3.64 3.87 0.00 [5,] 4.10 5.60 4.19 3.17 [6,] 2.80 2.80 2.96 3.71 [7,] 2.08 3.97 2.22 2.02 [8,] 1.05 3.00 2.83 1.45 [9,] 2.88 2.80 2.43 3.67 [10,] 2.71 1.79 3.26 3.57

columns. [,5] [,6] 4.10 2.80 5.60 2.80 4.19 2.96 3.17 3.71 0.00 5.07 5.07 0.00 3.67 2.99 3.37 2.36 4.57 1.01 4.89 1.35

[,7] 2.08 3.97 2.22 2.02 3.67 2.99 0.00 1.58 2.88 3.18

[,8] 1.05 3.00 2.83 1.45 3.37 2.36 1.58 0.00 2.29 2.38

[,9] [,10] 2.88 2.71 2.80 1.79 2.43 3.26 3.67 3.57 4.57 4.89 1.01 1.35 2.88 3.18 2.29 2.38 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00

1.4 The Multivariate Normal Distribution

9

In essence, in the previous section var and cor have computed similarities between variables, and taking 1-cor(huswif), for example, would give a measure of distance between the variables. More will be said about similarities and distances in Chapter 5.

1.4 The Multivariate Normal Distribution Just as the normal distribution dominates univariate techniques, the multivariate normal distribution often plays an important role in some multivariate procedures. The distribution is deﬁned explicitly in, for example, Mardia et al. (1979) and is assumed by techniques such as multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA); see Chapter 7. In practice some departure from this assumption is not generally regarded as particularly serious, but it may, on occasions, be worthwhile undertaking some test of the assumption. One relatively simple possibility is to use a probability plotting technique. Such plots are commonly applied in univariate analysis and involve ordering the observations and then plotting them against the appropriate values of an assumed cumulative distribution function. Details are given in Display 1.1 Display 1.1 Probability Plotting • There are two basic types of plot for comparing two probability distributions, the probability–probability plot and the quantile–quantile plot. The diagram below may be used for describing each type.

10

1. Multivariate Data and Multivariate Analysis

• A plot of points whose coordinates are the cumulative probabilities (px (q), py (q)) for different values of q is a probability–probability plot, while a plot of the points whose coordinates are the quantiles (qx (p), qy (p)) for different values of p is a quantile–quantile plot. • An example, a quantile–quantile plot for investigating the assumption that a set of data is from a normal distribution would involve plotting the ordered sample values y(1) , y(2) , K, y(n) against the quantiles of a standard normal distribution, −1 [p(i)], where usually i− pi = n

1 2

and

(x) =

x

−∞

1 2 1 √ e− 2 u du. 2π

• This is usually known as a normal probability plot.

For multivariate data such plots may be used to examine each variable separately, although marginal normality does not necessarily imply that the variables follow a multivariate normal distribution. Alternatively (or additionally), the multivariate observation might be converted to a single number in some way before plotting. For example, in the speciﬁc case of assessing a data set for multivariate normality, each q-dimensional observation xi , could be converted into a generalized distance (essentially Mahalanobis distance—see Everitt and Dunn, 2001), di2 giving a measure of the distance of the particular observation from the mean vector of the complete sample, x¯ ; di2 is calculated as di2 = (xi − x¯ ) S−1 (xi − x¯ ), where S is the sample covariance matrix. This distance measure takes into account the different variances of the variables and the covariances of pairs of variables. If the observations do arise from a multivariate normal distribution, then these distances have, approximately, a chi-squared distribution with q degrees of freedom. So, plotting the ordered distances against the corresponding quantiles of the appropriate chi-square distribution should lead to a straight line through the origin. First, let us consider some probability plots of a set of multivariate data constructed to have a multivariate normal distribution. We shall ﬁrst use the R function mvrnorm (the MASS library will need to be loaded to make the function available) and the S-PLUS function rmvnorm to create 200 bivariate observation with correlation coefﬁcient 0.5; R: #load MASS library library(MASS) #set seed for random number generation to get the same plots set.seed(1203) X<-mvrnorm(200,mu=c(0,0),Sigma=matrix(c(1,0.5,0.5,1.0),ncol=2))

1.4 The Multivariate Normal Distribution

S-PLUS:

11

set.seed(1203) X<-rmvnorm(200,rho=0.5,d=2)

(The data generated by R and S-PLUS will not be the same. The results below are those obtained from the data generated by R.) The probability plots for the individual variables are obtained using the following R and S-PLUS code: #set up plotting area to take two side-by-side plots par(mfrow=c(1,2)) qqnorm(X[,1],ylab="Ordered observations") qqline(X[,1]) qqnorm(X[,2],ylab="Ordered observations") qqline(X[,2])

Figure 1.1 Probability plots for both variables in a generated set of bivariate data with n = 200 and a correlation of 0.5.

12

1. Multivariate Data and Multivariate Analysis

#qqnorm produces the required plot and qqline the line #corresponding to a normal distribution

The resulting plots are shown in Figure 1.1. Neither probability plot gives any indication of a departure from linearity as we would expect. The chi-square plot for both variables simultaneously can be found using the function chisplot given on the website mentioned in the preface. The required code is par(mfrow=c(1,1)) chisplot(X)

Here the result appears in Figure 1.2. The plot is approximately linear, although some points do depart a little from the line. If we now transform the previously generated data by simply taking the log of the absolute values of the generated data and then redo the previous plots, the results are shown in Figures 1.3 and 1.4. In each plot, there is a very clear departure from linearity, indicating the non-normality of the data.

Figure 1.2 Chi-square probability plot of generated bivariate data.

1.5 The Aims of Multivariate Analysis

13

Figure 1.3 Probability plots of each variable in the transformed bivariate data.

1.5 The Aims of Multivariate Analysis It is helpful to recognize that the analysis of data involves two separate stages. The ﬁrst, particularly in new areas of research, involves data exploration in an attempt to recognize any nonrandom pattern or structure requiring explanation. At this stage, ﬁnding the question is often of more interest than seeking the subsequent answer. The aim of this part of the analysis being to generate possible interesting hypotheses for further study. (This activity is now often described as data mining.) Here, formal models designed to yield speciﬁc answers to rigidly deﬁned questions are not required. Instead, methods are sought that allow possibly unanticipated patterns in the data to be detected, opening up a wide range of competing explanations. Such techniques are generally characterized by their emphasis on the importance of visual displays and graphical representations and by the lack of any associated stochastic model, so that questions of the statistical signiﬁcance of the results are hardly ever of much importance.

14

1. Multivariate Data and Multivariate Analysis

Figure 1.4 Chi-square plot of generated bivariate data after transformation.

A conﬁrmatory analysis becomes possible after a research worker has some welldeﬁned hypothesis in mind. It is here that some type of statistical signiﬁcance test might be considered. Such tests are well known and, although their misuse has often brought them into some disrepute, they remain of considerable importance. In this text, Chapters 2–6 describe techniques that are primarily exploratory, and Chapters 7–9 techniques that are largely conﬁrmatory, but this division should not be regarded as much more than a convenient arrangement of the material to be presented, since any sensible investigator will realize the need for exploratory and conﬁrmatory techniques, and many methods will often be useful in both roles. Perhaps attempts to rigidly divide data analysis into exploratory and conﬁrmatory parts have been misplaced, and what is really important is that research workers should have a ﬂexible and pragmatic approach to the analysis of their data, with sufﬁcient expertise to enable them to choose the appropriate analytical tool and use it correctly. The choice of tool, of course, depends on the aims or purpose of the analysis. Most of this text is written from the point of view that there are no rules or laws of scientiﬁc inference—that is, “anything goes” (Feyerabend, 1975). This implies

1.6 Summary

15

that we see both exploratory and conﬁrmatory methods as two sides of the same coin. We see both methods as essentially tools for data exploration rather than as formal decision-making procedures. For this reason we do not stress the values of signiﬁcance levels, but merely use them as criteria to guide a modelling process (using the term “modelling” as a method or methods of describing the structure of a data set). We believe that in scientiﬁc research it is the skillful interpretation of evidence and subsequent development of hunches that are important, rather than a rigid adherence to a formal set of decision rules associated with signiﬁcance tests (or any other criteria, for that matter). One aspect of the scientiﬁc method, however, which we do not discuss in any detail, but which is the vital component in testing the theories that come out of our data analyses, is replication. It is clearly unsafe to search for a pattern in a given data set and to “conﬁrm” the existence of such a pattern using the same data set. We need to validate our conclusions using further data. At this point our subsequent analysis might become truly conﬁrmatory.

1.6 Summary Most data collected in the social sciences and other disciplines are multivariate. To fully understand most such data sets the variables need to be analyzed simultaneously. The remainder of this book is concerned with methods that have been developed to make this possible, and to help discover any patterns or structure in the data that may have important implications in uncovering the data’s message.

2

Looking at Multivariate Data

2.1 Introduction Most of the chapters in this book are concerned with methods for the analysis of multivariate data, which are based on relatively complex mathematics. This chapter, however, is not. Here we look at some relatively simple graphical procedures and there is no better software for producing graphs than R and S-PLUS® . According to Chambers et al. (1983) “there is no statistical tool that is as powerful as a well-chosen graph.” Certainly graphical presentation has a number of advantages over tabular displays of numerical results, not the least of which is creating interest and attracting the attention of the viewer. Graphs are very popular. It has been estimated that between 900 billion (9 × 1011 ) and 2 trillion (2 × 1012 ) images of statistical graphics are printed each year. Perhaps one of the main reasons for such popularity is that graphical presentation of data often provides the vehicle for discovering the unexpected; the human visual system is very powerful in detecting patterns, although the following caveat from the late Carl Sagan should be kept in mind. Humans are good at discerning subtle patterns that are really there, but equally so at imagining them when they are altogether absent.

During the last two decades a wide variety of new methods for displaying data graphically have been developed. These will hunt for special effects in data, indicate outliers, identify patterns, diagnose models and generally search for novel and perhaps unexpected phenomena. Large numbers of graphs may be required, and computers are generally needed to generate them for the same reasons they are used for numerical analyses, namely, they are fast and they are accurate. So, because the machine is doing the work, the question is no longer “Shall we plot?” but rather “What shall we plot?” There are many exciting possibilities including, dynamic graphics (see Cleveland and McGill, 1987), but graphical exploration of data usually begins with some simpler, well-known methods. Univariate marginal views of multivariate data might, for example, be obtained using histograms, stemand-leaf plots, or box plots. More important for exploring multivariate data are plots that allow the relationships between variables to be assessed. Consequently we begin our discussion of graphics with the ubiquitous scatterplot. 16

2.2 Scatterplots and Beyond

17

2.2 Scatterplots and Beyond The simple xy scatterplot has been in used since at least the eighteenth century and has many virtues. Indeed, according to Tufte (1983): The relational graphic—in its barest form the scatterplot and its variants—is the greatest of all graphical designs. It links at least two variables, encouraging and even imploring the viewer to assess the possible causal relationship between the plotted variables. It confronts causal theories that x causes y with empirical evidence as to the actual relationship between x and y.

To illustrate the use of the scatterplot and the other techniques to be discussed in subsequent sections we shall use the data shown in Table 2.1. These data give Table 2.1 Air Pollution Data for Regions in the United States Rainfall

Educ

Popden

Nonwhite

NOX

SO2

AkronOH

Region

36

11.4

3243

8.8

15

59

Mortality 921.9

AlbanyNY

35

11.0

4281

3.5

10

39

997.9

AllenPA

44

9.8

4260

0.8

6

33

962.4

AtlantGA

47

11.1

3125

27.1

8

24

982.3

BaltimMD

43

9.6

6441

24.4

38

206

1071.0

BirmhmAL

53

10.2

3325

38.5

32

72

1030.0

BostonMA

43

12.1

4679

3.5

32

62

934.7

BridgeCT

45

10.6

2140

5.3

4

4

899.5

BufaloNY

36

10.5

6582

8.1

12

37

1002.0

CantonOH

36

10.7

4213

6.7

7

20

912.3

ChatagTN

52

9.6

2302

22.2

8

27

1018.0

ChicagIL

33

10.9

6122

16.3

63

278

1025.0

CinnciOH

40

10.2

4101

13.0

26

146

970.5

ClevelOH

35

11.1

3042

14.7

21

64

986.0

ColombOH

37

11.9

4259

13.1

9

15

958.8

DallasTX

35

11.8

1441

14.8

1

1

860.1

DaytonOH

36

11.4

4029

12.4

4

16

936.2

DenverCO

15

12.2

4824

4.7

8

28

871.8

DetrotMI

31

10.8

4834

15.8

35

124

959.2

FlintMI

30

10.8

3694

13.1

4

11

941.2

FtwortTX

31

11.4

1844

11.5

1

1

891.7

GrndraMI

31

10.9

3226

5.1

3

10

871.3

GrnborNC

42

10.4

2269

22.7

3

5

971.1

HartfdCT

43

11.5

2909

7.2

3

10

887.5 (Continued)

18

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

Table 2.1 (Continued) Region

Rainfall

Educ

Popden

Nonwhite

NOX

SO2

Mortality

HoustnTX

46

11.4

2647

21.0

5

1

952.5

IndianIN

39

11.4

4412

15.6

7

33

968.7

KansasMO

35

12.0

3262

12.6

4

4

919.7

LancasPA

43

9.5

3214

2.9

7

32

844.1

LosangCA

11

12.1

4700

7.8

319

130

861.8

LouisvKY

30

9.9

4474

13.1

37

193

989.3

MemphsTN

50

10.4

3497

36.7

18

34

1006.0

MiamiFL

60

11.5

4657

13.5

1

1

861.4

MilwauWI

30

11.1

2934

5.8

23

125

929.2

MinnplMN

25

12.1

2095

2.0

11

26

857.6

NashvlTN

45

10.1

2082

21.0

14

78

961.0

NewhvnCT

46

11.3

3327

8.8

3

8

923.2

NeworlLA

54

9.7

3172

31.4

17

1

1113.0

NewyrkNY

42

10.7

7462

11.3

26

108

994.6

PhiladPA

42

10.5

6092

17.5

32

161

1015.0

PittsbPA

36

10.6

3437

8.1

59

263

991.3

PortldOR

37

12.0

3387

3.6

21

44

894.0

ProvdcRI

42

10.1

3508

2.2

4

18

938.5

ReadngPA

41

9.6

4843

2.7

11

89

946.2

RichmdVA

44

11.0

3768

28.6

9

48

1026.0

RochtrNY

32

11.1

4355

5.0

4

18

874.3

StLousMO

34

9.7

5160

17.2

15

68

953.6

SandigCA

10

12.1

3033

5.9

66

20

839.7

SanFranCA

18

12.2

4253

13.7

171

86

911.7

SanJosCA

13

12.2

2702

3.0

32

3

790.7

SeatleWA

35

12.2

3626

5.7

7

20

899.3

SpringMA

45

11.1

1883

3.4

4

20

904.2

SyracuNY

38

11.4

4923

3.8

5

25

950.7

ToledoOH

31

10.7

3249

9.5

7

25

972.5

UticaNY

40

10.3

1671

2.5

2

11

912.2

WashDC

41

12.3

5308

25.9

28

102

968.8

WichtaKS

28

12.1

3665

7.5

2

1

823.8

WilmtnDE

45

11.3

3152

12.1

11

42

1004.0

WorctrMA

45

11.1

3678

1.0

3

8

895.7

YorkPA

42

9.0

9699

4.8

8

49

911.8

YoungsOH

38

10.7

3451

11.7

13

39

954.4

Data assumed available as dataframe airpoll with variable names as indicated.

2.2 Scatterplots and Beyond

19

information on 60 U.S. metropolitan areas (McDonald and Schwing, 1973; Henderson and Velleman, 1981). For each area the following variables have been recorded: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Rainfall: mean annual precipitation in inches Education: median school years completed for those over 25 in 1960 Popden: population/mile2 in urbanized area in 1960 Nonwhite: percentage of urban area population that is nonwhite NOX: relative pollution potential of oxides of nitrogen SO2: relative pollution potential of sulphur dioxide Mortality: total age-adjusted mortality rate, expressed as deaths per 100,000

One of the questions about these data might be “How is sulphur dioxide pollution related to mortality?” A ﬁrst step in answering the question would be to examine a scatterplot of the two variables. Here, in fact, we will produce four versions of the basic scatterplot using the following R and S-PLUS code (we assume that the data are available as the data frame airpoll with variable names as above): attach(airpoll) #set up plotting area to take four graphs par(mfrow=c(2,2,)) par(pty="s") plot(SO2,Mortality,pch=1,lwd=2) title("(a)",lwd=2) plot(SO2,Mortality,pch=1,lwd=2) #add regression line abline(lm(Mortality∼SO2),lwd=2) title("(b)",lwd=2) #jitter data airpoll1<-jitter(cbind(SO2,Mortality)) plot(airpoll1[,1],airpoll1[,2],xlab="SO2",ylab="Mortality", pch=1,lwd=2) title("(c)",lwd=2) plot(SO2,Mortality,pch=1,lwd=2) #add rug plots rug(jitter(SO2),side=1) rug(jitter(Mortality),side=2) title("(d)",lwd=2)

Figure 2.1(a) shows the scatterplot of Mortality against SO2. Figure 2.1(b) shows the same scatterplot with the addition of the simple linear regression ﬁt of Mortality on SO2. Both plots suggest a possible link between increasing sulphur dioxide level and increasing mortality. Although not a real problem here, scatterplots in which there are many points often suffer from overplotting. The problem can be overcome, partially at least, by “jittering” the data, that is, adding a small amount of noise to each observation

20

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

Figure 2.1 (a) Scatterplot for Mortality against SO2; (b) scatterplot of Mortality against SO2 with added linear regression ﬁt; (c) jittered scatterplot of Mortality against SO2; (d) scatterplot of Mortality against SO2 with information about marginal distributions of the two variables added.

before plotting (see Chambers et al., 1983, for details). Figure 2.1(c) shows the scatterplot in Figure 2.1(a) after jittering. Finally, in Figure 2.1(d), the bivariate scatter of the two variables is framed with a display of the marginal distribution of each variable. Plotting marginal and joint distributions together is usually good data analysis practice. With these data it might be useful to label the scatterplot with the names of the regions involved. These names are rather long, and if used as they are would

2.2 Scatterplots and Beyond

21

lead to a rather “messy” plot; consequently we shall use the R and S-PLUS function abbreviate to shorten them before plotting using the code: names<-abbreviate(row.names(airpoll)) plot(SO2,Mortality,lwd=2,type="n") text(SO2,Mortality,labels=names,lwd=2)

Figure 2.2 highlights some regions with odd combinations of pollution and mortality values. For example, nwLA has almost zero SO2 value, but very high mortality. Perhaps this is a garden suburb where people go to retire? In Figure 2.1(b) a simple linear regression ﬁt was added to the Mortality/SO2 scatterplot. This addition is often very useful for assessing the relationship between the two variables more accurately. Even more useful is to add both the linear regression ﬁt and a locally weighted regression or lowest ﬁt to the scatterplot. Such ﬁts are described in detail in Cleveland (1979), but essentially they are designed to use the data themselves to suggest the type of ﬁt needed. The model assumed is that yi = g(xi ) + i , where g is a “smooth” function and the i are random variables with zero mean and constant variance. Fitted values, yˆi , are used to estimate g(xi ) at each xi by ﬁtting polynomials using weighted least squares, with large weights for points close to

Figure 2.2 Scatterplot of mortality against SO2 with points labeled by region name.

22

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

xi and small weights otherwise. The degree of “smoothness” of the ﬁtted curve can be controlled by a particular parameter during the ﬁtting process. Examining a scatterplot that includes a locally weighted regression ﬁt can often be a useful antidote to the thoughtless ﬁtting of straight lines with least squares. To illustrate the use of lowest ﬁts we return to the air pollution data and again concentrate on the two variables, SO2 and Mortality. The following R and S-PLUS code produces a scatterplot with some information about marginal distributions that also includes both a linear regression and a locally weighted regression ﬁt: #set up plotting area for scatterplot par(fig=c(0,0.7,0,0.7)) plot(SO2,Mortality,lwd=2) #add regression line abline(lm(Mortality∼SO2),lwd=2) #add locally weighted regression fit lines(lowess(SO2,Mortality),lwd=2) #set up plotting area for histogram par(fig=c(0,0.7,0.65,1),new=TRUE) hist(SO2,lwd=2) #set up plotting area for boxplot par(fig=c(0.65,1,0,0.7),new=TRUE) boxplot(Mortality,lwd=2)

The resulting diagram is shown in Figure 2.3. Here, apart from a small “wobble” for sulphur dioxide values 0 to 100, the linear ﬁt and the locally weighted ﬁt are very similar.

2.2.1 The Convex Hull of Bivariate Data Scatterplots are often used in association with the calculation of the correlation coefﬁcient of two variables. Outliers, for example, can often considerably distort the value of a correlation coefﬁcient, and a scatterplot may help to identify the offending observations, which might then be excluded from the calculation. Another approach that allows robust estimation of the correlation is convex hull trimming. The convex hull of a set of bivariate observations consists of the vertices of the smallest convex polyhedron in variable space within which, or on which, all data points lie. Removal of the points lying on the convex hull can eliminate isolated outliers without disturbing the general shape of the bivariate distribution. A robust estimate of the correlation coefﬁcient results from using the remaining observations. Let’s see how the convex hull approach works with our Mortality/SO2 scatterplot. We can calculate the correlation coefﬁcient of the two variables using all the observations from the R and S-PLUS instruction: cor(SO2, Mortality)

giving a value of 0.426.

2.2 Scatterplots and Beyond

23

Figure 2.3 Scatterplot of mortality against SO2 with added linear regression and locally weighted regression ﬁts and marginal distribution information.

Now we can ﬁnd the convex hull of the data and, for interest, show it on a scatterplot of the two variables using the following R and S-PLUS code: #find points defining convex hull hull<-chull(SO2,Mortality) plot(SO2,Mortality,pch=1) #plot and shade convex hull polygon(SO2[hull],Mortality[hull],density=15,angle=30)

The result is shown in Figure 2.4. To calculate the correlation coefﬁcient after removal of the points deﬁning the convex hull requires the instruction cor(SO2[-hull],Mortality[-hull])

The resulting value of the correlation is now 0.438. In this case the change in the correlation after removal of the points deﬁning the convex hull is very small, surprisingly small, given that some of the deﬁning observations are relatively remote from the body of the data.

2.2.2 The Chiplot Although the scatterplot is a primary data-analytic tool for assessing the relationship between a pair of continuous variables, it is often difﬁcult to judge whether or not

24

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

Figure 2.4 Scatterplot of mortality against SO2 showing convex hull of the data.

the variables are independent. A random scatter of points may be hard for the human eye to judge. Consequently, it is often helpful to augment the scatterplot with an auxiliary display in which independence is itself manifested in a characteristic manner. The chi-plot suggested by Fisher and Switzer (1985, 2001) is designed to address the problem. The essentials of this type of plot are described in Display 2.1.

Display 2.1 The Chi-Plot • A chi-plot is a scatterplot of the pairs

1 1 (λi , χi ), |λ2 | < 4 − n−1 2

2 ,

where χi = (Hi − Fi Gi )/{Fi (1 − Fi )Gi (1 − Gi )}1/2 1 2 1 2 λi = 4Si max Fi − , Gi − 2 2

2.2 Scatterplots and Beyond

25

and Hi =

I (xj ≤ xi , yj ≤ yi )/(n − 1)

j =i

Fi =

I (xj ≤ xi )/(n − 1)

j =i

Gi =

I (yj ≤ yi )/(n − 1)

j =i

Si = sign

1 1 Gi − Fi − 2 2

where sign (x) is +1 if x is positive, 0 if x is zero, and −1 if x is negative; I (A) is the indicator function for the event A, that is, if A is true I (A) = 1, if A is not true, I (A) = 0. • When the two variables are independent, the points in a chi-plot will be scattered about a central region. When they are related, the points will tend to lie outside this central region. See the example in the text.

An R and S-PLUS function for producing chi-plots, the chiplot is given on the website mentioned in the Preface. To illustrate the chi-plot we shall apply it to the Mortality and SO2 variables of the air pollution data using the code chiplot(SO2,Mortality,vlabs=c("SO2","Mortality"))

The result is Figure 2.5 which shows the scatterplot of Mortality plotted against SO2 alongside the corresponding chi-plot. Departure from independence is indicated in the latter by a lack of points in the horizontal band indicated on the plot. Here there is a clear departure since there are very few of the observations in this region.

2.2.3 The Bivariate Boxplot A further helpful enhancement to the scatterplot is often provided by the twodimensional analogue of the boxplot for univariate data, known as the bivarate boxplot (Goldberg and Iglewicz, 1992). This type of boxplot may be useful in indicating the distributional properties of the data and in identifying possible outliers. The bivariate boxplot is based on calculating “robust” measures of location, scale, and correlation. It consists essentially of a pair of concentric ellipses, one of which (the “hinge”) includes 50% of the data and the other (called the “fence”) which delineates potential troublesome outliers. In addition, resistant regression lines of both y on x and x on y are shown, with their intersection showing the bivariate location estimator. The acute angle between the regression lines will be small

26

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

Figure 2.5 Chi-plot of Mortality and SO2.

for a large absolute value of correlations and large for a small one. Details of the construction of a bivarate boxplot are as given in Display 2.2:

Display 2.2 Constructing a Bivariate Boxplot • The bivariate boxplot is the two-dimensional analogue of the familiar boxplot for univariate data and consists of a pair of concentric ellipses, the “hinge” and the “fence.” • To draw the elliptical fence and hinge, location (Tx∗ , Ty∗ ), scale (Sx∗ , Sy∗ ), and correlation (R ∗ ) estimators are needed, in addition to a constant D that regulates the distance of the fence from the hinge. In general D = 7 is recommended since this corresponds to an approximate 99% conﬁdence bound on a single observation. • In general, robust estimators of location, scale, and correlation are recommended since they are better at handling data with outliers or with density or shape differing moderately from the elliptical bivariate normal. Goldberg and Iglewicz (1992) discuss a number of possibilities.

2.2 Scatterplots and Beyond

27

• To draw the bivariate boxplot, ﬁrst calculate the median Em and the maximum Emax of the standardized errors, Ei , which are essentially the generalized distances of each point from the centre (Tx∗ , Ty∗ ). Speciﬁcally, the Ei are deﬁned by 2 + Y 2 − 2R ∗ X Y Xsi si si si Ei = , ∗2 1−R where Xsi = (Xi − Tx∗ )/Sx∗ is the standardized Xi value and Ysi is similarly deﬁned. • Then Em = median {Ei : i = 1, 2, K, n} and 2 Emax = maximum {Ei : Ei2 < DEm }.

• To draw the hinge, let R1 = Em

1 + R∗ , 2

R2 = Em

1 − R∗ . 2

• For θ = 0 to 360 in steps of 2, 3, 4, or 5 degrees, let 1 2 X Y

= R1 cos θ, = R2 sin θ, = Tx∗ + ( 1 + 2 )Sx∗ , = Ty∗ + ( 1 − 2 )Sy∗ .

• Finally, plot X, Y .

To illustrate the use of a bivariate boxplot we shall again use the SO2 and Mortality scatterplot. An R and S-PLUS function, bivbox, for constructing and plotting the boxplot is given on the website (see Preface) and can be used as follows,

bivbox(cbind(SO2,Mortality),xlab="SO2",ylab="Mortality"))

to give the diagram shown in Figure 2.6. In Figure 2.6 robust estimators of scale and location have been used and the diagram suggests that there are ﬁve outliers in the data. To use the nonrobust

28

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

Figure 2.6 Bivariate boxplot of SO2 and Mortality (robust estimators of location, scale, and correlation).

Figure 2.7 Bivariate boxplot of SO2 and Mortality (nonrobust estimators).

2.3 Estimating Bivariate Densities

29

estimators, that is, the usual means, variances, and correlation coefﬁcient, the necessary code is bivbox(cbind(SO2,Mortality),xlab="SO2",ylab="Mortality", method="O")

The resulting diagram is shown in Figure 2.7. Now only three outliers are identiﬁed. In general the use of the robust estimator version of the bivbox function is recommended.

2.3 Estimating Bivariate Densities Often the aim in examining scatterplots is to identify regions where there are high or low densities of observations, “clusters,” or to spot outliers. But humans are not particularly good at visually examining point density, and it is often a very helpful aid to add some type of bivariate density estimate to the scatterplot. In general a nonparametric estimate is most useful since we are unlikely, in most cases, to want to assume some particular parametric form such as the bivariate normality. There is now a considerable literature on density estimation; see, for example, Silverman (1986) and Wand and Jones (1995). Basically, density estimates are “smoothed” two-dimensional histograms. A brief summary of the mathematics of bivariate density estimation is given in Display 2.3.

Display 2.3 Estimating Bivariate Densities • The data set whose underlying density is to be estimated is X1 , X2 , L, Xn . • The bivariate kernel density estimator with kernel K and window width h is deﬁned by n 1 1 ˆ f (x) = 2 K (x − Xi ) . nh h i=1

• The kernel function K(x) is a function, deﬁned for bivariate x, satisfying K(x)dx = 1. • Usually K(x) will be a radially symmetric unimodal probability density function, for example, the standard bivariate normal density function: 1 1 exp − x x . K(x) = 2π 2

30

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

Let us look at a simple two-dimensional histogram of the Mortality/SO2 observations found and then displayed as a perspective plot by using the S-PLUS code h2d<-hist2d(SO2,Mortality) persp(h2d,xlab="SO2",ylab="Mortality",zlab="Frequency")

The result is shown in Figure 2.8. The density estimate given by the histogram is really too rough to be useful. (The function hist2d appears to be unavailable in R, but this is of little consequence since, in practice, unsmoothed two-dimensional histograms are of little use.) Now we can use the R and S-PLUS function bivden given on the website to ﬁnd a smoother estimate of the bivariate density of Mortality and SO2 and to then display the estimated density as both a contour and perspective plot. The necessary code is

0

5

Frequency 15 10

20

#get bivariate density estimates using a normal kernel den1<-bivden(SO2,Mortality) #construct a perspective plot of the density values persp(den1$seqx,den1$seqy,den1$den,xlab="SO2", ylab="Mortality", zlab="Density",lwd=2) # plot(SO2,Mortality) #add a contour plot of the density values to the scatterplot contour(den1$seqx,den1$seqy,den1$den,lwd=2,nlevels=20,add=T)

11

00

250

10

00

Mo

r ta

lity

200

90

0 80

0

100 50

Figure 2.8 Two-dimensional histogram of Mortality and SO2.

150 SO 2

2.3 Estimating Bivariate Densities

Figure 2.9 Perspective plot of estimated bivariate density of Mortality and SO2.

Figure 2.10 Contour plot of estimated bivariate density of Mortality and SO2.

31

32

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

The results are shown in Figures 2.9 and 2.10. Both plots give a clear indication of the skewness in the bivariate density of the two variables. (The diagrams shown result from using S-PLUS; those from R are a little different.) In R the bkde2D function from the KernSmooth library might also be used to provide bivariate density estimates; see Exercise 2.7.

2.4 Representing Other Variables on a Scatterplot The scatterplot can only display two variables. But there have been a number of suggestions as to how extra variables may be included. In this section we shall illustrate one of these, the bubbleplot, in which three variables are displayed. Two variables are used to form the scatterplot itself, and then the values of the third variable are represented by circles with radii proportional to these values and centered on the appropriate point in the scatterplot. To illustrate the bubbleplot we shall use the three variables, SO2, Rainfall, and Mortality from the air pollution data. The R and S-PLUS code needed to produce the required bubble plot is plot(SO2,Mortality,pch=1,lwd=2,ylim=c(700,1200), xlim=c(-5,300)) #add circles to scatterplot symbols(SO2,Mortality,circles=Rainfall,inches=0.4,add=TRUE, lwd=2)

Figure 2.11 Bubbleplot of Mortality and SO2 with Rainfall represented by radii of circles.

2.5 The Scatterplot Matrix

33

The resulting diagram is shown in Figure 2.11. Two particular observations to note are the one with high mortality and rainfall but very low sulphur dioxide level (NworlLA) and the one with relatively low mortality and low rainfall but moderate sulphur dioxide level (losangCA).

2.5 The Scatterplot Matrix There are seven variables in the air pollution data which between them generate 21 possible scatterplots, and it is very important that the separate plots are presented in the best way to an in overall comprehension and understanding of the data. The scatterplot matrix is intended to accomplish this objective. A scatterplot matrix is deﬁned as a square, symmetric grid of bivariate scatterplots. The grid has q rows and columns, each one corresponding to a different variable. Each of the grid’s cells shows a scatterplot of two variables. Variable j is plotted against variable i in the ij th cell, and the same variables appear in cell j i with the x- and y-axes of the scatterplots interchanged. The reason for including both the upper and lower triangles of the grid, despite the seeming redundancy, is that it enables a row and a column to be visually scanned to see one variable against all others, with the scales for the one variable lined up along the horizontal or the vertical. To produce the basic scatterplot matrix of the air pollution variable we can use the pairs function in both R and S-PLUS pairs(airpoll)

The result is Figure 2.12. The plot highlights that many pairs of variables in the air pollution data appear to be related in a relatively complex fashion, and that there are some potentially troublesome outliers in the data. Rather than having variable labels on the main diagonal as in Figure 2.10, we may like to have some graphical representation of the marginal distribution of the corresponding variable, for example, a histogram. And here is a convenient point in the discussion to illustrate brieﬂy the “click-and-point” features of the S-PLUS GUI since these can be useful in some situations, although for serious work the command line approach used up to now, and in most of the remainder of the book, is to be recommended. So to construct the required plot: • • • • • • • • •

Click on Graph in the toolbar; Select 2D plot; In Axes Type highlight Matrix; Click OK; In Scatterplot Matrix Dialogue select airpoll as data set; Highlight all variables names in x-column slot; Check Line/Histogram tab; Check Draw Histogram; Click on OK.

The resulting diagram appears in Figure 2.13.

34

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

Figure 2.12 Scatterplot matrix of air pollution data. 9

10

11

12

0

10

20

30

40

0

50 100 150 200 250 60 50 40 30

Rainfall

20 10 0 12 11 Education 10 9 10000 8000 6000 Popden

4000 2000 0

40 30 20

Nonwhite

10 0 300 200 NOX 100 0 250 200 150

SO2

100 50 0

1100 1000 Mortality

900 800 700

01

02

03

04

05

06

0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

0

100

200

300

700

800

900

1000 1100

Figure 2.13 Scatterplot matrix of air pollution data showing histograms of each variable on the main diagonal.

2.6 Three-Dimensional Plots

35

Figure 2.14 Scatterplot matrix of air pollution data showing linear and locally weighted regression ﬁts on each panel.

Previously in this chapter we looked at a variety of ways in which individual scatterplots can be enhanced to make them more useful. These enhancements can, of course, also be used on each panel of a scatterplot matrix. For example, we can add linear and locally weighted regression ﬁts to the air pollution diagram using the following code in either R or S-PLUS pairs(airpoll,panel=function(x,y) {abline(lsfit(x,y)$coef, lwd=2) lines(lowess(x,y),lty=2, lwd=2) points(x,y)})

to give Figure 2.14. Other possibilities for enhancing the panels of a scatterplot matrix are considered in the exercises.

2.6 Three-Dimensional Plots In S-PLUS there are a variety of three-dimensional plots that can often be usefully applied to multivariate data. We will illustrate some of the possibilities using once

36

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

Figure 2.15 Three-dimensional plot of SO2, NOX, and Mortality.

again the air pollution data. To begin we will construct a simple three-dimensional plot of SO2, NOX, and Mortality again using the S-PLUS GUI: • • • • • •

Click Graph on the tool bar; Select 3D; In Insert Graph Dialogue, choose 3D Scatter, and click OK; In the 3D Line/Scatterplot [1] dialogue select Data Set airpoll; Select SO2 for x Column, NOX for y Column, and Mortality for z; Click OK.

300 600 0

Mortality

900

Mortality appears to increase rapidly with increasing NOX values but more modestly with increasing levels of SO2. (A similar diagram can be found using the cloud function in S-PLUS and in R where it is available in the lattice library.) Often it is easier to see what is happening in such a plot if lines are used to join drop-line plot. Such a plot is obtained using the instructions above but in Insert Graph dialogue, choose 3D Scatter with Drop Line. The result is shown in Figure 2.16

24

0 N 16 O 0 X

180 80

120 60

240

SO 2

Figure 2.16 Three-dimensional drop line plot of SO2, NOX, and Mortality.

2.7 Conditioning Plots and Trellis Graphics

37

2.7 Conditioning Plots and Trellis Graphics The conditioning plot or coplot is a potentially powerful visualization tool for studying the bivariate relationship of a pair of variables conditional on the values of one or more other variables. Such plots can often highlight the presence of interactions between the variables where the degree and/or direction of the bivariate relationship differs in the different levels of the third variable. To illustrate we will construct a coplot of Mortality against SO2 conditioned on population density (Popden) for the air pollution data. We need the R and S-PLUS function coplot coplot(Mortality∼SO2|Popden)

The resulting plot is shown in Figure 2.17. In this diagram, the panel at the top is known as the given panel; the panels below are dependence panels. Each rectangle in the given panel speciﬁes a range of values of population density. On a corresponding dependence panel, Mortality is plotted against SO2 for those regions with population densities within one of the intervals in the given panel. To match the latter to the dependence panels, these panels need to be examined from left to right in the bottom row and then again left to right in subsequent rows.

Figure 2.17 Coplot of SO2 and Mortality conditional on population density.

38

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

There are relatively few observations in each panel on which to draw conclusions about possible differences in the relationship of SO2 and Mortality at different levels of population density although there do appear to be some differences. In such cases it is often helpful to enhance the coplot dependence panels in some way. Here we add a locally weighted regression ﬁt using the R and S-PLUS code: coplot(Mortality∼SO2|Popden,panel=function(x,y,col,pch) panel.smooth(x,y,span=1))

The result is shown in Figure 2.18. This plot suggests that the relationship between mortality and sulphur dioxide for lower levels of population density is more complex than at higher levels, although the number of points on which this claim is made is rather small. Conditional graphical displays are simple examples of a more general scheme known as trellis graphics (Becker and Cleveland, 1994). This is an approach to examining high-dimensional structure in data by means of one-, two-, and threedimensional graphs. The problem addressed is how observations of one or more variables depend on the observations of the other variables. The essential feature of this approach is the multiple conditioning that allows some type of plot to be displayed for different values of a given variable (or variables). The aim is to help in

Figure 2.18 Coplot of SO2 and Mortality conditional on population density with added locally weighted regression ﬁt.

2.7 Conditioning Plots and Trellis Graphics

39

understanding both the structure of the data and how well proposed models describe the structure. An excellent recent example of the application of trellis graphics is given in Verbyla et al. (1999). To illustrate the possibilities we shall construct a three-dimensional plot of SO2, NOX, and Mortality conditional on Popden. The necessary “click-and-point” steps are: • Click on Data in the tool bar; • In Select Data box choose airpoll; • Click OK; , to get 3D plot palette; • Click on 3D plots button, • Highlight NOX in spreadsheet and then ctrl click on SO2, Mortality, and Popden; • Turn conditioning button on; • Choose Drop line scatter from 3D palette.

Mortality

24

24

0

18

60

80

160 X NO

18

SO 0 1 2 20

240

60

80

60

80

160 X NO

240

800

800

Mortality

900 1000 1100

SO 0 1 2 20

900 1000 1100

0

Mortality

900 1000 1100 800

800

Mortality

900 1000 1100

The resulting diagram is shown in Figure 2.19.

24

0

24

0

18

SO 0 1 2 20

60

80

160 X NO

240

18

SO 0 1 2 20

160 X NO

240

Figure 2.19 Three-dimensional plot for NOX, SO2, and Mortality conditional on Popden.

40

2. Looking at Multivariate Data

2.8 Summary Plotting multivariate data is an essential ﬁrst step in trying to understand their message. The possibilities are almost limitless with software such as R and S-PLUS and readers are encouraged to explore more fully what is available. The methods covered in this chapter provide just some basic ideas for taking an initial look at multivariate data.

Exercises 2.1 The bubbleplot makes it possible to accommodate three variable values on a scatterplot. More than three variables can be accommodated by using what might be termed a star plot in which the extra variables are represented by the lengths of the sides of a “star.” Construct such a plot for all seven variables in the air pollution data using say Rainfall and SO2 to form the basic scatterplot. (Use the symbols function.) 2.2 Construct a scatterplot matrix of the air pollution data in which each panel shows a bivariate density estimate of the pair of variables. 2.3 Construct a trellis graphic showing a scatterplot of SO2 and Mortality conditioned on both rainfall and population density. 2.4 Construct a three-dimensional plot of Rainfall, SO2, and Mortality showing the estimated regression surface of Mortality on the other two variables. 2.5 Construct a three-dimensional plot of SO2, NOX, and Rainfall in which the observations are labelled by an abbreviated form of the region name. 2.6 Investigate the use of the chiplot function on all pairs of variables in the air pollution data. 2.7 Investigate the use of the bkde2D function in the KernSmooth library of R to calculate the bivariate density of SO2 and Mortality in the air pollution data. Use the wireframe function available in the lattice library in R to construct a perspective plot of the estimated density. 2.8 Produce a similar diagram to that given in Figure 2.19 using the cloud function.

3

Principal Components Analysis

3.1 Introduction The basic aim of principal components analysis is to describe the variation in a set of correlated variables, x1 , x2 , . . . , xq , in terms of a new set of uncorrelated variables, y1 , y2 , . . . , yq , each of which is a linear combination of the x variables. The new variables are derived in decreasing order of “importance” in the sense that y1 accounts for as much of the variation in the original data amongst all linear combinations of x1 , x2 , . . . , xq . Then y2 is chosen to account for as much as possible of the remaining variation, subject to being uncorrelated with y1 , and so on. The new variables deﬁned by this process, y1 , y2 , . . . , yq , are the principal components. The general hope of principal components analysis is that the ﬁrst few components will account for a substantial proportion of the variation in the original variables, x1 , x2 , . . . , xq , and can, consequently, be used to provide a convenient lower-dimensional summary of these variables that might prove useful for a variety of reasons. Consider, for example, a set of data consisting of examination scores for several different subjects for each of a number of students. One question of interest might be how best to construct an informative index of overall examination performance. One obvious possibility would be the mean score for each student, although if the possible or observed range of examination scores varied from subject to subject, it might be more sensible to weight the scores in some way before calculating the average, or alternatively standardize the results for the separate examinations before attempting to combine them. In this way it might be possible to spread the students out further and so obtain a better ranking. The same result could often be achieved by applying principal components to the observed examination results and using the student’s scores on the ﬁrst principal component to provide a measure of examination success that maximally discriminated between them. A further possible application for principal components analysis arises in the ﬁeld of economics, where complex data are often summarized by some kind of index number, for example, indices of prices, wage rates, cost of living, and so on. When assessing changes in prices over time, the economist will wish to allow for the fact that prices of some commodities are more variable than others, or that the prices of some of the commodities are considered more important than others; in each case 41

42

3. Principal Components Analysis

the index will need to be weighted accordingly. In such examples, the ﬁrst principal component can often satisfy the investigators requirements. But it is not always the ﬁrst principal component that is of most interest to a researcher. A taxonomist, for example, when investigating variation in morphological measurements on animals for which all the pairwise correlations are likely to be positive, will often be more concerned with the second and subsequent components since these might provide a convenient description of aspects of an animal’s “shape”; the latter will often be of more interest to the researcher than aspects of an animal’s “size” which here, because of the positive correlations, will be reﬂected in the ﬁrst principal component. For essentially the same reasons, the ﬁrst principal component derived from say clinical psychiatric scores on patients may only provide an index of the severity of symptoms, and it is the remaining components that will give the psychiatrist important information about the “pattern” of symptoms. In some applications, the principal components may be an end in themselves and might be amenable to interpretation in a similar fashion as the factors in an exploratory factor analysis (see Chapter 4). More often they are obtained for use as a means of constructing an informative graphical representation of the data (see later in the chapter), or as input to some other analysis. One example of the latter is provided by regression analysis. Principal components may be useful here when: • There are too many explanatory variables relative to the number of observations. • The explanatory variables are highly correlated. Both situations lead to problems when applying regression techniques, problems that may be overcome by replacing the original explanatory variables with the ﬁrst few principal component variables derived from them. An example will be given later and other applications of the technique are described in Rencher (1995). A further example of when the results from a principal components analysis may be useful in the application of multivariate analysis of variance (see Chapter 7) is when there are too many original variables to ensure that the technique can be used with reasonable power. In such cases the ﬁrst few principal components might be used to provide a smaller number of variables for analysis.

3.2 Algebraic Basics of Principal Components The ﬁrst principal component of the observations is that linear combination of the original variables whose sample variance is greatest amongst all possible such linear combinations. The second principal component is deﬁned as that linear combination of the original variables that accounts for a maximal proportion of the remaining variance subject to being uncorrelated with the ﬁrst principal component. Subsequent components are deﬁned similarly. The question now arises as to how the coefﬁcients specifying the linear combinations of the original variables deﬁning each component are found. The algebra of sample principal components is summarized in Display 3.1.

3.2 Algebraic Basics of Principal Components

43

Display 3.1 Algebraic Basis of Principal Components Analysis • The ﬁrst principal component of the observations, y1 , is the linear combination y1 = a11 x1 + a12 x2 + · · · + a1q xq whose sample variance is greatest among all such linear combinations. • Since the variance of y1 could be increased without limit simply by increasing the coefﬁcients a11 , a12 , . . . , a1q (which we will write as the vector a1 ), a restriction must be placed on these coefﬁcients.As we shall see later, a sensible constraint is to require that the sum of squares of the coefﬁcients, a1 a1 should take the value one, although other constraints are possible. • The second principal component y2 is the linear combination y2 = a21 x1 + a22 x2 + · · · + a2q xq i.e., y2 = a2 x where a2 = [a21 , a22 , . . . , a2q ] and x = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xq ]. which has the greatest variance subject to the following two conditions: a2 a2 = 1, a2 a1 = 0. The second condition ensures that y1 and y2 are uncorrelated. • Similarly, the j th principal component is that linear combination yj = aj x which has the greatest variance subject to the conditions aj aj = 1, aj ai = 0

(i < j ).

• To ﬁnd the coefﬁcients deﬁning the ﬁrst principal component we need to choose the elements of the vector a1 so as to maximize the variance of y1 subject to the constraint a1 a1 = 1. • To maximize a function of several variables subject to one or more constraints, the method of Lagrange multipliers is used. This leads to the solution that a1 is the eigenvector of the sample covariance matrix, S, corresponding to its largest eigenvalue. Full details are given in Morrison (1990), and an example with q = 2 appears in Subsection 3.2.4. • The other components are derived in similar fashion, with aj being the eigenvector of S associated with its j th largest eigenvalue. • If the eigenvalues of S are λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λq , then since ai ai = 1, the variance of the ith principal component is given by λi . • The total variance of the q principal components will equal the total variance of the original variables so that q

i=1

λi = s12 + s22 + · · · + sq2

44

3. Principal Components Analysis

where si2 is the sample variance of xi . We can write this more concisely as q

λi = trace(S).

i=1

• Consequently, the j th principal component accounts for a proportion Pj of the total variation of the original data, where Pj =

λj . trace(S)

• The ﬁrst m principal components, where m < q account for a proportion P (m) of the total variation in the original data, where m λi (m) = i=1 P trace(S)

In geometrical terms it is easy to show that the ﬁrst principal component deﬁnes the line of best ﬁt (in the least squares sense) to the q-dimensional observations in the sample. These observations may therefore be represented in one dimension by taking their projection onto this line, that is, ﬁnding their ﬁrst principal component score. If the observations happen to be collinear in q dimensions, this representation would account completely for the variation in the data and the sample covariance matrix would have only one nonzero eigenvalue. In practice, of course, such collinearity is extremely unlikely, and an improved representation would be given by projecting the q-dimensional observations onto the space of the best ﬁt, this being deﬁned by the ﬁrst two principal components. Similarly, the ﬁrst m components give the best ﬁt in m dimensions. If the observations ﬁt exactly into a space of m-dimensions, it would be indicated by the presence of q-m zero eigenvalues of the covariance matrix. This would imply the presence of q-m linear relationships between the variables. Such constraints are sometimes referred to as structural relationships. The account of principal components given in Display 3.1 is in terms of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the covariance matrix, S. In practice, however, it is far more usual to extract the components from the correlation matrix, R. The reasons are not difﬁcult to identify. If we imagine a set of multivariate data where the variables x1 , x2 , . . . , xq are of completely different types, for example, length, temperature, blood pressure, anxiety rating, etc., then the structure of the principal components derived from the covariance matrix will depend on the essentially arbitrary choice of choice of units of measurement; for example, changing lengths from centimeters to inches will alter the derived components.

3.2 Algebraic Basics of Principal Components

45

Additionally if there are large differences between the variances of the original variables, those whose variances are largest will tend to dominate the early components; an example illustrating this problem is given in Jolliffe (2002). Extracting the components as the eigenvectors of R, which is equivalent to calculating the principal components from the original variables after each has been standardized to have unit variance, overcomes these problems. It should be noted, however, that there is rarely any simple correspondence between the components derived from S and those derived from R. And choosing to work with R rather than with S involves a deﬁnite but possibly arbitrary decision to make variables “equally important.” The correlations or covariances between the original variables and the derived components are often useful in interpreting a principal components analysis. They can be obtained as shown in Display 3.2.

Display 3.2 Correlations and Covariances of Variables and Components • The covariance of variable i with component j is given by Cov(xi , yj ) = λj aj i . • The correlation of variable xi with component yj is therefore λj aj i rxi ,yj = Var(xi ) Var(yj ) aj i λj λj aj i = = . si si λj • If the components are extracted from the correlation matrix rather than the covariance matrix, then rxi ,yi = aj i λj , since in this case the standard deviation, si , is unity.

3.2.1 Rescaling Principal Components It is often useful to rescale principal components so that the coefﬁcients that deﬁne them are analogous in some respects to the factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis (see Chapter 4). Again the necessary algebra is relatively simple and is outlined in Display 3.3.

46

3. Principal Components Analysis

Display 3.3 Rescaling Principal Components • Let the vectors a1 , a2 , . . . , aq , which deﬁne the principal components, be used to form a q × q matrix, A = [a1 , . . . , aq ]. • Arrange the eigenvalues λ1 , . . . , λq along the main diagonal of a diagonal matrix, . • Then it can be shown that the covariance matrix of the observed variables x1 , x2 , . . . , xq is given by S = AA . (We are assuming here that a1 , a2 , . . . , aq have been derived from S rather than from R.) • Rescaling the vectors a1 , a2 , . . . , aq so that the sum of squares of their ele1/2 ments is equal to the corresponding eigenvalue, i.e., calculating a∗i = λi ai , allows S to may be written more simply as S = A∗ (A∗ ) where A∗ = [a∗1 , . . . , a∗q ]. • In the case where components arise from a correlation matrix this rescaling leads to coefﬁcients that are the correlations between the components and the original variables (see Display 3.2). The rescaled coefﬁcients are analogous to factor loadings as we shall see in the next chapter. It is often these rescaled coefﬁcients that are presented as the results of a principal components analysis. • If the matrix A∗ is formed from say the ﬁrst m components rather than from all q, then A∗ (A∗ ) gives the predicted value of S based on these m components.

3.2.2 Choosing the Number of Components As described earlier, principal components analysis is seen to be a technique for transforming a set of observed variables into a new set of variables that are uncorrelated with one another. The variation in the original q variables is only completely accounted for by all q principal components. The usefulness of these transformed variables, however, stems from their property of accounting for the variance in decreasing proportions. The ﬁrst component, for example, accounts for the maximum amount of variation possible for any linear combination of the original variables. But how useful is this artiﬁcial variation constructed from the observed variables? To answer this question we would ﬁrst need to know the proportion of the total variance of the original variables for which it accounted. If, for example, 80% of the variation in a multivariate data set involving six variables could be accounted for by a simple weighted average of the variable values, then almost all the variation can be expressed along a single continuum rather than in six-dimensional space.

3.2 Algebraic Basics of Principal Components

47

The principal components analysis would have provided a highly parsimonious summary (reducing the dimensionality of the data from six to one) that might be useful in later analysis. So the question we need to ask is how many components are needed to provide an adequate summary of a given data set? A number of informal and more formal techniques are available. Here we shall concentrate on the former; examples of the use of formal inferential methods are given in Jolliffe (2002) and Rencher (1995). The most common of the relatively ad hoc procedures that have been suggested are the following: • Retain just enough components to explain some speciﬁed, large percentage of the total variation of the original variables. Values between 70% and 90% are usually suggested, although smaller values might be appropriate as q or n, the sample size, increases. • Exclude those principal q components whose eigenvalues are less than the average, q λ /q. Since i=1 i i λi = trace(S) the average eigenvalue is also the average variance of the original variables. This method then retains those components that account for more variance than the average for the variables. • When the components are extracted from the correlation matrix, trace(R) = q, and the average is therefore one; components with eigenvalues less than one are therefore excluded. This rule was originally suggested by Kaiser (1958), but Jolliffe (1972), on the basis of a number of simulation studies, proposed that a more appropriate procedure would be to exclude components extracted from a correlation matrix whose associated eigenvalues are less than 0.7. • Cattell (1965) suggests examination of the plot of the λi against i, the so-called scree diagram. The number of components selected is the value of i corresponding to an “elbow” in the curve, this point being considered to be where “large” eigenvalues cease and “small” eigenvalues begin. A modiﬁcation described by Jolliffe (1986) is the log-eigenvalue diagram consisting of a plot of log(λi ) against i.

3.2.3 Calculating Principal Component Scores If we decide that we need say m principal components to adequately represent our data (using one or other of the methods described in the previous subsection), then we will generally wish to calculate the scores on each of these components for each individual in our sample. If, for example, we have derived the components from the covariance matrix, S, then the m principal component scores for individual i with original q × 1 vector of variable values xi , are obtained as yi1 = a1 xi yi2 = a2 xi .. . yim = am xi

48

3. Principal Components Analysis

If the components are derived from the correlation matrix, then xi would contain individual i’s standardized scores for each variable. The principal component scores calculated as above have variances equal to λj for j = 1, . . . , m. Many investigators might prefer to have scores with means zero and variances equal to unity. Such scores can be found as follows: z = −1 m Am x

where m is an m × m diagonal matrix with λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λm on the main diagonal, Am = [a1 , . . . , am ], and x is the q × 1 vector of standardized scores. We should note here that the ﬁrst m principal component scores are the same whether we retain all possible q components or just the ﬁrst m. As we shall see in the next chapter, this is not the case with the calculation of factor scores.

3.2.4 Principal Components of Bivariate Data with Correlation Coefﬁcient r Before we move on to look at some practical examples of the application of principal components analysis it will be helpful to look in a little more detail at the mathematics of the method in one very simple case. This we do in Display 3.4 for bivariate data where the variables have correlation coefﬁcient r. Display 3.4 Principal Components of Bivariate Data with Correlation r • Suppose we have just two variables, x1 and x2 , measured on a sample of individuals, with sample correlation matrix given by 1.0 r R= . r 1.0 • In order to ﬁnd the principal components of the data r we need to ﬁnd the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of R. • The eigenvalues are roots of the equation |R − λI| = 0. • This leads to a quadratic equation in λ, (1 − λ)2 − r 2 = 0, giving eigenvalues λ1 = 1 + r, λ2 = 1 − r. Note that the sum of the eigenvalues is 2, equal to trace (R). • The eigenvector corresponding to λ1 is obtained by solving the equation Ra1 = λ1 a1

3.3 An Example of Principal Components Analysis: Air Pollution in U.S. Cities

49

• This leads to the equations a11 + ra12 = (1 + r)a11 ,

ra11 + a12 = (1 + r)a12 .

• The two equations are identical and both reduce to a11 = a12 . • If we now introduce the normalization constraint, a1 a1 = 1 we ﬁnd that 1 a11 = a12 = √ . 2 √ • Similarly, we √ ﬁnd the second eigenvector to be given by a21 = 1/ 2 and a22 = −1/ 2. • The two principal components are then given by 1 y1 = √ (x1 + x2 ), 2

1 y2 = √ (x1 − x2 ). 2

• Notice that if r < 0 the order of the eigenvalues and hence of the principal components is reversed; if r = 0 the eigenvalues are both equal to 1 and any two solutions at right angles could be chosen to represent the two components. • Two further points: 1. There is an arbitrary sign in the choice of the elements of ai ; it is customary to choose ai1 to be positive. 2. The components do not depend on r, although the proportion of variance explained by each does change with r. As r tends to 1 the proportion of variance accounted for by y1 , namely (1 + r)/2, also tends to one. • When r = 1, the points all line on a straight line and the variation in the data is unidimensional.

3.3 An Example of Principal Components Analysis: Air Pollution in U.S. Cities To illustrate a number of aspects of principal components analysis we shall apply the technique to the data shown in Table 3.1, which is again concerned with air pollution in the United States. For 41 cities in the United States the following seven variables were recorded: SO2: Sulphur dioxide content of air in micrograms per cubic meter Temp: Average annual temperature in ◦ F Manuf : Number of manufacturing enterprises employing 20 or more workers

50

3. Principal Components Analysis

Table 3.1 Air Pollution in U.S. Cities. From Biometry, 2/E, Robert R. Sokal and F. James Rohlf. Copyright © 1969, 1981 by W.H. Freeman and Company. Used with permission. City

SO2

Temp

Manuf

Pop

Wind

Precip

Days

Phoenix

10

70.3

213

582

6.0

7.05

36

Little Rock

13

61.0

91

132

8.2

48.52

100

San Francisco

12

56.7

453

716

8.7

20.66

67

Denver

17

51.9

454

515

9.0

12.95

86

Hartford

56

49.1

412

158

9.0

43.37

127

Wilmington

36

54.0

80

80

9.0

40.25

114

Washington

29

57.3

434

757

9.3

38.89

111

Jacksonville

14

68.4

136

529

8.8

54.47

116

Miami

10

75.5

207

335

9.0

59.80

128

Atlanta

24

61.5

368

497

9.1

48.34

115

Chicago

110

50.6

3344

3369

10.4

34.44

122

Indianapolis

28

52.3

361

746

9.7

38.74

121

Des Moines

17

49.0

104

201

11.2

30.85

103

Wichita Louisville New Orleans

8

56.6

125

277

12.7

30.58

82

30

55.6

291

593

8.3

43.11

123

9

68.3

204

361

8.4

56.77

113

Baltimore

47

55.0

625

905

9.6

41.31

111

Detroit

35

49.9

1064

1513

10.1

30.96

129

Minneapolis

29

43.5

699

744

10.6

25.94

137

Kansas

14

54.5

381

507

10.0

37.00

99

St Louis

56

55.9

775

622

9.5

35.89

105

Omaha

14

51.5

181

347

10.9

30.18

98

Albuquerque

11

56.8

46

244

8.9

7.77

58

Albany

46

47.6

44

116

8.8

33.36

135

Buffalo

11

47.1

391

463

12.4

36.11

166

Cincinnati

23

54.0

462

453

7.1

39.04

132

Cleveland

65

49.7

1007

751

10.9

34.99

155

Columbus

26

51.5

266

540

8.6

37.01

134

Philadelphia

69

54.6

1692

1950

9.6

39.93

115

Pittsburgh

61

50.4

347

520

9.4

36.22

147

Providence

94

50.0

343

179

10.6

42.75

125

Memphis

10

61.6

337

624

9.2

49.10

105

Nashville

18

59.4

275

448

7.9

46.00

119

Dallas

9

66.2

641

844

10.9

35.94

78

Houston

10

68.9

721

1233

10.8

48.19

103 (Continued)

3.3 An Example of Principal Components Analysis: Air Pollution in U.S. Cities

51

Table 3.1 (Continued) City

SO2

Temp

Manuf

Pop

Wind

Precip

Salt Lake City

28

51.0

137

Norfolk

31

59.3

96

Richmond

26

57.8

Seattle

29

51.1

Charleston

31

Milwaukee

16

Days

176

8.7

15.17

89

308

10.6

44.68

116

197

299

7.6

42.59

115

379

531

9.4

38.79

164

55.2

35

71

6.5

40.75

148

45.7

569

717

11.8

29.07

123

Data assumed to be available as data frame usair.dat with variable names as speciﬁed in the table.

Pop: Wind: Precip: Days:

Population size (1970 census) in thousands Average annual wind speed in miles per hour Average annual precipitation in inches Average number of days with precipitation per year

The data were originally collected to investigate the determinants of pollution presumably by regressing SO2 on the other six variables. Here, however, we shall examine how principal components analysis can be used to explore various aspects of the data, before looking at how such an analysis can also be used to address the determinants of pollution question. To begin we shall ignore the SO2 variable and concentrate on the others, two of which relate to human ecology ( Pop, Manuf ) and four to climate (Temp, Wind, Precip, Days). A case can be made to use negative temperature values in subsequent analyses, since then all six variables are such that high values represent a less attractive environment. This is, of course, a personal view, but as we shall see later, the simple transformation of Temp does aid interpretation. Prior to undertaking a principal components analysis (or any other analysis) on a set of multivariate data, it is usually imperative to graph the data in some way so as to gain an insight into its overall structure and/or any “peculiarities” that may have an impact on the analysis. Here it is useful to construct a scatterplot matrix of the six variables, with histograms for each variable on the main diagonal. How to do this using the S-PLUS GUI (assuming the dataframe usair.dat has already been attached) has already been described in Chapter 2 (see Section 2.5). The diagram that results is shown in Figure 3.1. A clear message from Figure 3.1 is that there is at least one city, and probably more than one, that should be considered an outlier. On the Manuf variable, for example, Chicago with a value of 3344 has about twice as many manufacturing enterprises employing 20 or more workers than has the city with the second highest number (Philadelphia). We shall return to this potential problem later in the chapter, but for the moment we shall carry on with a principal components analysis of the data for all 41 cities. For the data in Table 3.1 it seems necessary to extract the principal components from the correlation rather than the covariance matrix, since the six variables to be

52

3. Principal Components Analysis

Figure 3.1 Scatterplot matrix of six variables in the air pollution data.

used are on very different scales. The correlation matrix and the principal components of the data can be obtained in R and S-PLUS® using the following command line code; cor(usair.dat[,-1]) usair.pc<-princomp(usair.dat[,-1],cor=TRUE) summary(usair.pc,loadings=TRUE)

The resulting output is shown in Table 3.2. (This output results from using S-PLUS; with R the signs of the coefﬁcients of the ﬁrst principal component are reversed.) One thing to note about the correlations is the very high value for Manuf and Pop, a ﬁnding returned to in Exercise 3.8. From Table 3.2 we see that the ﬁrst three components all have variances (eigenvalues) greater than one and together account for almost 85% of the variance of the original variables. Scores on these three components might be used to summarize the data in further analyses with little loss of information. We shall illustrate this possibility later. Most users of principal components analysis search for an interpretation of the derived coefﬁcients that allow them to be “labelled” in some sense. This requires examining the coefﬁcients deﬁning each component (in Table 3.2 these are scaled so that their sums of squares equal unity—“blanks” indicate near-zero values), we see that the ﬁrst component might be regarded as some index of “quality of life” with high values indicating a relatively poor environment (in the author’s terms at least). The second component is largely concerned with a city’s rainfall, having

3.3 An Example of Principal Components Analysis: Air Pollution in U.S. Cities

53

Table 3.2 S-PLUS Results from the Principal Components Analysis of the Air Pollution Data Neg temp Neg temp Manuf Pop Wind Precip Days

1.000 0.190 0.0627 0.350 −0.386 0.430

Importance of components: Comp 1 Standard deviation Proportion of variance Cumulative proportion

Manuf 0.190 1.000 0.955 0.238 −0.032 0.132

Pop 0.063 0.955 1.000 0.213 −0.026 0.042

Wind

Precip

Days

0.350 0.238 0.213 1.000 −0.013 0.164

−0.386 −0.032 −0.026 −0.013 1.000 0.496

0.430 0.132 0.042 0.164 0.496 1.000

Comp 2

Comp 3

Comp 4

Comp 5

Comp 6

1.482 0.366 0.366

1.225 0.250 0.616

1.181 0.232 0.848

0.872 0.127 0.975

0.338 0.019 0.994

0.186 0.006 1.000

Comp 1

Comp 2

Comp 3

Comp 4

Comp 5

Comp 6

Loadings: Neg temp Manuf Pop Wind Precip Days

0.330 0.612 0.578 0.354 — 0.238

0.128 −0.168 −0.222 0.131 0.623 0.708

0.672 −0.273 −0.350 0.297 −0.505 —

−0.306 −0.137 — 0.869 0.171 −0.311

0.558 0.102 — −0.113 0.568 −0.580

0.136 −0.703 0.695 — — —

high coefﬁcients for Precip and Days, and might be labeled as the “wet weather” component. Component three is essentially a contrast between Precip and Neg temp, and will separate cities having high temperatures and high rainfall from those that are colder but drier. A suitable label might be simply “climate type.” Attempting to label components in this way is not without its critics; the following quotation from Marriott (1974) should act as a salutary warning about the dangers of overinterpretation. It must be emphasized that no mathematical method is, or could be, designed to give physically meaningful results. If a mathematical expression of this sort has an obvious physical meaning, it must be attributed to a lucky change, or to the fact that the data have a strongly marked structure that shows up in analysis. Even in the latter case, quite small sampling ﬂuctuations can upset the interpretation; for example, the ﬁrst two principal components may appear in reverse order, or may become confused altogether. Reiﬁcation then requires considerable skill and experience if it is to give a true picture of the physical meaning of the data.

Even if we do not care to label the three components they can still be used as the basis of various graphical displays of the cities. In fact, this is often the most useful aspect of a principal components analysis because regarding the principal components analysis as a means to providing an informative view of multivariate data has the advantage of making it less urgent or tempting to try to interpret and label the components. The ﬁrst few component scores provide a low-dimensional “map” of the observations in which the Euclidean distances between the points

54

3. Principal Components Analysis

representing the individuals best approximate in some sense the Euclidean distances between the individuals based on the original variables. We shall return to this point in Chapter 5. So we will begin by looking at the scatterplot of the ﬁrst two principal components created using the following R and S-PLUS commands; #choose square plotting area and make limits on both the x #and y axes the same # par(pty="s") plot(usair.pc$scores[,1],usair.pc$scores[,2], ylim=range(usair.pc$scores[,1]), xlab="PC1",ylab="PC2",type="n",lwd=2) # #now add abbreviated city names # text(usair.pc$scores[,1],usair.pc$scores[,2], labels=abbreviate(row.names(usair.dat)),cex=0.7,lwd=2)

The resulting diagram is given in Figure 3.2. Similar diagrams for components 1 and 3 and 2 and 3 are given in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. (These diagrams are from the S-PLUS results.) The plots again demonstrate clearly that Chicago is an outlier and suggest that Phoenix and Philadelphia may also be suspects in this respect. Phoenix appears to offer the best quality of life (on the limited basis on the six variables recorded), and Buffalo is a city to avoid if you prefer a drier environment. We leave further interpretation to readers. We can also construct a three-dimensional plot of the cities using these three component scores. The initial step is to construct a new data frame containing the ﬁrst three principal component scores and the city names using usair1.dat <- data.frame(cities=row.names(usair.dat), usair.dat, usair.pc$scores[,1:3]) attach(usair1.dat)

We shall now use the S-PLUS GUI to construct a drop-line three-dimensional plot of the data. Details of how to construct such a plot were given in Chapter 2, but it may be helpful to go through them again here; • Click Graph on the tool bar; • Select 3D; • In Insert Graph dialogue, choose 3D Scatter with drop line (x, y), and click OK; • In the 3D Line/Scatter Plot [1] dialogue select Data Set usair.dat; • Select Comp 1 for x Column, Comp 2 for y Column, Comp 3 for z Column and Cities for w Column; • Check Symbol tab; • Check Use Text as Symbol button; • Specify text to use as w Column; • Change Font to bold and Height to 0.15, click OK

3.3 An Example of Principal Components Analysis: Air Pollution in U.S. Cities

55

Figure 3.2 Scatterplot of the air pollution data in the space of the ﬁrst two principal components.

The resulting diagram is shown in Figure 3.5. Again the problem with Chicago is very clear. We will now use the three component scores for each city to investigate perhaps the prime question for these data, namely what characteristics of a city are predictive of its level of sulfur dioxide pollution? It may ﬁrst be helpful to have a record of the component scores found from usair.pc$scores[,1:3]

The scores are shown in Table 3.3. Before undertaking a formal regression analysis of the data we might look at SO2 plotted against each of the three principal component scores. We can construct these plots in both R and S-PLUS as follows: par(mfrow=c(1,3)) plot(usair.pc$scores[,1],SO2,xlab="PC1") plot(usair.pc$scores[,2],SO2,xlab="PC2") plot(usair.pc$scores[,3],SO2,xlab="PC3")

The plots are shown in Figure 3.6. Interpretation of the plots is somewhat hampered by the presence of the outliers such as Chicago, but it does appear that pollution is related to the ﬁrst principal component score but not, perhaps, to the other two. We can examine this more

56

3. Principal Components Analysis

Figure 3.3 Scatterplot of the air pollution data in the space of the ﬁrst and third principal components.

formally by regressing sulphur dioxide concentration on the ﬁrst three principal components scores. The necessary R and S-PLUS command is; summary(lm(SO2 ∼ usair.pc$scores[, 1] + usair.pc$scores[, 2] + usair.pc$scores[, 3]))

The resulting output is shown in Table 3.4. Clearly pollution is predicted only by the ﬁrst principal component score. As “quality of life”—as measured by the human ecology and climate variable—gets worse (i.e., ﬁrst PC score increases), pollution also tends to increase. (Note that because we are using principal component scores as explanatory variables in this regression the correlations of coefﬁcients are all zero.) Now we need to consider what to do about the obvious outliers in the data such as Chicago. The simplest approach would be to remove the relevant cities and then repeat the analyses above. The problem with such an approach is deciding when to stop removing cities, and we shall leave that as an exercise for the reader (see Exercise 3.7). Here we shall use a different approach that involves what is known as the minimum volume ellipsoid, a robust estimator of the correlation matrix of the data proposed by Rousseeuw (1985) and described in less technical terms in Rousseeuw and van Zomeren (1990). The essential feature of the estimator is

3.3 An Example of Principal Components Analysis: Air Pollution in U.S. Cities

Figure 3.4 Scatterplot of the air pollution data in the space of the second and third principal components.

Figure 3.5 Drop line plot of air pollution data in the space of the ﬁrst three principal components.

57

58

3. Principal Components Analysis Table 3.3 First Three Principal Components Scores for Each City in the Air Pollution Data Set City

Comp 1

Phoenix

−2.440

Little Rock San Francisco

Comp 2

Comp 3

−4.191

−0.942

−1.612

0.342

−0.840

−0.502

−2.255

0.227

Denver

−0.207

−1.963

1.266

Hartford

−0.219

0.976

0.595

Wilmington

−0.996

0.501

0.433

Washington

−0.023

−0.055

−0.354

Jacksonville

−1.228

0.849

−1.876

Miami

−1.533

1.405

−2.607

Atlanta

−0.599

0.587

−0.995

6.514

−1.668

−2.286

Chicago Indianapolis

0.308

0.360

0.285

Des Moines

−0.132

−0.061

1.650

Wichita

−0.197

−0.676

1.131

Louisville

−0.424

0.541

−0.374

New Orleans

−1.454

0.901

−1.992

Baltimore

0.509

0.029

−0.364

Detroit

2.167

−0.271

0.147

Minneapolis

1.500

0.247

1.751

−0.131

−0.252

0.275

Kansas

0.286

−0.384

−0.156

Omaha

−0.134

−0.385

1.236

Albuquerque

−1.417

−2.866

1.275

Albany

−0.539

0.792

1.363

St Louis

Buffalo

1.391

1.880

1.776

−0.508

0.486

−0.266

Cleveland

1.766

1.039

0.747

Columbus

−0.119

0.640

0.423

Philadelphia

2.797

−0.658

−1.415

Pittsburgh

0.322

1.027

0.748

Cincinnati

Providence

0.070

10.34

0.888

Memphis

−0.578

0.325

−1.115

Nashville

−0.910

0.543

−0.859

Dallas

−0.007

−1.212

−0.998

0.508

−0.113

−1.994

Houston

(Continued)

3.3 An Example of Principal Components Analysis: Air Pollution in U.S. Cities

59

Table 3.3 (Continued) City

Comp 1

Comp 2

Comp 3

Salt Lake City

−0.912

−1.547

1.565

Norfolk

−0.589

0.752

−0.061

Richmond

−1.172

0.335

−0.509

0.482

1.597

0.609

Charleston

−1.430

1.211

−0.079

Milwaukee

1.391

0.158

1.691

Seattle

selecting a covariance matrix (C) and mean vector (M) such that the determinant of C is minimized subject to the number of observations for which (xi − M) C−1 (xi − M) ≤ a 2 is greater than or equal to h where h is the integer part of (n + q + 1)/2. The 2 number a 2 is a ﬁxed constant, usually chosen as χq,0.50 , when we expect the

Figure 3.6 Plots of sulphur dioxide concentration against ﬁrst three principal component scores.

60

3. Principal Components Analysis

Table 3.4 Results of Regressing Sulphur Dioxide Concentration on First Three Principal Component Scores Residuals: Min −36.42

1Q

Median

3Q

Max

−10.98

−3.184

12.09

61.27

Coefﬁcients: Value (Intercept) usair.pc$scores[, 1] usair.pc$scores[, 2] usair.pc$scores[, 3]

30.0488 9.9420 2.2396 −0.3750

Std error 2.9072 1.9617 2.3738 2.4617

t value

Pr (?|t|)

10.3360 5.0679 0.9435 −0.1523

0.0000 0.0000 0.3516 0.8798

Residual standard error: 18.62 on 37 degrees of freedom Multiple R-squared: 0.4182 F-statistic: 8.866 on 3 and 37 degrees of freedom, the p-value is 0.0001473 Correlation of coefﬁcients: (Intercept) usair.pc$scores[, 1] usair.pc$scores[, 2] usair.pc$scores[, 1] 0 usair.pc$scores[, 2] 0 0 usair.pc$scores[, 3] 0 0 0

majority of the data to come from a normal distribution. The estimator has a high breakdown point, but is computationally expensive; see Rousseeuw and van Zomren (1990) for further details. The necessary R and S-PLUS function to apply this estimator is cov.mve (in R the lqs library needs to be loaded to make the function available). The following code applies the function and then uses principal components on the robustly estimated correlation matrix: #in R load lqs library library(lqs) usair.mve<-cov.mve(usair.dat[,-1],cor=TRUE) usair.mve$cor usair.pc1<-princomp(usair.dat[,-1],covlist=usair.mve,cor=TRUE) summary(usair.pc1,loadings=T)

The resulting correlation matrix and principal components are shown in Table 3.5. (Different estimates will result each time this code is used.) Although the pattern of correlations in Table 3.5 is largely similar to that seen in Table 3.2, there are a number of individual correlation coefﬁcients that differ considerably in the two correlation matrices; for example, those for Precip and Neg temp (−0.386 in Table 3.2 and −0.898 in Table 3.5), and Wind and Precip (−0.013 in Table 3.2 and −0.475 in Table 3.5). The effect on the principal components analysis of these differences is, however, considerable. The ﬁrst component now has a considerable negative coefﬁcient for Precip and the second component is considerably different from that in Table 3.2. Labelling the coefﬁcients is not straightfoward (at least for the author) but again it might be of interest to regress sulphur dioxide

3.4 Summary

61

Table 3.5 Correlation Matrix and Principal Components from Using a Robust Estimator Neg temp Neg temp Manuf Pop Wind Precip Days

1.000 0.247 0.034 0.339 −0.898 0.393

0.247 1.000 0.842 0.292 −0.310 0.213

Importance of components: Comp 1 Standard deviation Proportion of variance Cumulative proportion

Manuf

Pop 0.034 0.842 1.000 0.243 −0.151 0.049

Wind

Precip

Days

0.339 0.292 0.243 1.000 −0.475 −0.109

−0.898 −0.310 −0.151 −0.475 1.000 −0.138

0.393 0.213 0.049 −0.109 −0.138 1.000

Comp 2

Comp 3

Comp 4

Comp 5

Comp 6

1.620 0.437 0.437

1.240 0.256 0.694

1.066 0.189 0.883

0.719 0.086 0.969

0.360 0.216 0.991

0.234 0.009 1.000

Comp 1

Comp 2

Comp 3

Comp 4

Comp 5

Comp 6

Loadings: Neg temp Manuf Pop Wind Precip Days

0.485 0.447 0.351 0.370 −0.512 0.205

−0.455 0.495 0.627 — 0.354 −0.168

— −0.151 — 0.561 −0.164 −0.791

−0.226 — −0.137 0.739 0.347 0.504

— 0.723 −0.670 — 0.119 −0.122

0.706 — 0.113 — 0.671 −0.188

concentration on the ﬁrst two or three principal component scores of this second analysis; see Exercise 3.8.

3.4 Summary Principal components analysis is among the oldest of multivariate techniques having been introduced originally by Pearson (1901) and independently by Hotelling (1933). It remains, however, one of the most widely employed methods of multivariate analysis, useful both for providing a convenient method of displaying multivariate data in a lower-dimensional space and for possibly simplifying other analyses of the data. Modern competitors to principal components analysis that may offer more powerful analyses of complex multivariate data are projection pursuit (Jones and Sibson, 1987), and independent components analysis (Hyvarinen et al., 2001). The former is a technique for ﬁnding “interesting” directions in multidimensional data sets; a brief account of the method is given in Everitt and Dunn (2001). The later is a statistical and computational technique for revealing hidden factors that underlie sets of random variables, measurements, or signals. An R implementation of both is described on the Internet at http://CRAN.R-project.org/

62

3. Principal Components Analysis

Exercises Suppose that x = [x1 , x2 ] is such that x2 = 1 − x1 and x1 = 1 with probability p and x1 = 0 with probability q = 1 − p. Find the covariance matrix of x and its eigenvalues and eigenvectors. 3.2 The eigenvectors of a covariance matrix, S, scaled so that their sums of squares are equal to the corresponding eigenvalue, are c1 , c2 , . . . , cp . Show that 3.1

S = c1 c1 + c2 c2 + · · · + cp cp . If the eigenvalues of S are λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λp show that if the coefﬁcients deﬁning the principal components are scaled so that ai ai = 1, then the variance of the ith principal component is λi . 3.4 If two variables, X and Y , have covariance matrix S given by a b S= , c d

3.3

show that if c = 0 then the ﬁrst principal component is c2 c (V1 − a)2 X+ Y, 2 2 2 c + (V1 − a) |c| c + (V1 − a)2 where V1 is the variance explained by the ﬁrst principal component. What is the value of V1 ? 3.5 Use S-PLUS or R to ﬁnd the principal components of the following correlation matrix calculated from measurements of seven physical characteristics in each of 3000 convicted criminals: ⎞ ⎛ 1 1.00 2 ⎜0.402 1.00 ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ 3 ⎜0.396 0.618 1.00 ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ R = 4 ⎜0.301 0.150 0.321 1.00 ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ 5 ⎜0.305 0.135 0.289 0.846 1.00 ⎟ ⎠ 6 ⎝0.339 0.206 0.363 0.759 0.797 1.00 7 0.340 0.183 0.345 0.661 0.800 0.736 1.00 Variables: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Head length Head breadth Face breadth Left ﬁnger length Left forearm length Left foot length Height

How would you interpret the derived components?

3.4 Summary

63

3.6 The data in Table 3.6 show the nutritional content of different foodstuffs (the quantity involved is always three ounces). Use S-PLUS or R to create a scatterplot matrix of the data labeling the foodstuffs appropriately in each panel. On the basis of this diagram undertake what you think is an appropriate principal components analysis and try to interpret your results. 3.7 As described in the text, the air pollution data in Table 3.1 suffers from containing one or perhaps more than one outlier. Investigate this potential problem in more detail and try to reach a conclusion as to how many cities’ observations Table 3.6 Contents of Foodstuffs. From Clustering Algorithms, Hartigan, J.A., 1975, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Reprinted with kind permission of J.A. Hartigan. Energy

Protein

Fat

Calcium

Iron

BB Beef, braised

340

20

28

9

2.6

HR Hamburger

245

21

17

9

2.7

BR Beef roast

420

15

39

7

2.0

BS Beef, steak

375

19

32

9

2.5

BC Beef, canned

180

22

10

17

3.7

CB Chicken, broiled

115

20

3

8

1.4

CC Chicken, canned

170

25

7

12

1.5

BH Beef, heart

160

26

5

14

5.9

LL Lamb leg, roast

265

20

20

9

2.6

LS Lamb shoulder, roast

300

18

25

9

2.3

HS Smoked ham

340

20

28

9

2.5

PR Pork roast

340

19

29

9

2.5

PS Pork simmered

355

19

30

9

2.4

BT Beef tongue

205

18

14

7

2.5

VC Veal cutlet

185

23

9

9

2.7

FB Blueﬁsh, baked

135

22

4

25

0.6

70

11

1

82

6.0

AR Clams, raw AC Clams, canned

45

7

1

74

5.4

TC Crabmeat, canned

90

14

2

38

0.8

HF Haddock, fried

135

16

5

15

0.5

MB Mackerel, broiled

200

19

13

5

1.0

MC Mackerel, canned

155

16

9

157

1.8

PF Perch, fried

195

16

11

14

1.3

SC Salmon, canned

120

17

5

159

0.7

DC Sardines, canned

180

22

9

367

2.5

UC Tuna, canned

170

25

7

7

1.2

RC Shrimp, canned

110

23

1

98

2.6

64

3. Principal Components Analysis

might need to be dropped before applying principal components analysis. Then undertake the analysis on the reduced data set and compare the results from those given in the text derived from using a robust estimate of the correlation matrix. 3.8 Investigate the use of the principal component scores associated with the analysis using the robust estimator of the correlation matrix as explanatory variables in a regression with sulphur dioxide concentration as dependent variable. Compare the results both with those given in Table 3.4 and those obtained in Exercise 3.7. 3.9 Investigate the use of multiple regression on the air pollution data using the human ecology and climate variables to predict sulphur dioxide pollution, keeping in mind the possible problem of the large correlation between at least two of the predictors. Do the conclusions match up to those given in the text from using principal component scores as explanatory variables?

4

Exploratory Factor Analysis

4.1 Introduction In many areas of psychology and other disciplines in the behavioural sciences, it is often not possible to measure directly the concepts of primary interest. Two obvious examples are intelligence and social class. In such cases the researcher is forced to examine the concepts indirectly by collecting information on variables that can be measured or observed directly, and which can also realistically be assumed to be indicators, in some sense, of the concepts of real interest. The psychologist who is interested in an individual’s “intelligence,” for example, may record examination scores in a variety of different subjects in the expectation that these scores are related in some way to what is widely regarded as “intelligence.” And a sociologist, say, concerned with people’s “social class,” might pose questions about a person’s occupation, educational background, home ownership, etc., on the assumption that these do reﬂect the concept he or she is really interested in. Both “intelligence” and “social class” are what are generally referred to as latent variables; i.e., concepts that cannot be measured directly but can be assumed to relate to a number of measurable or manifest variables. The method of analysis most generally used to help uncover the relationships between the assumed latent variables and the manifest variables is exploratory factor analysis. The model on which the method is based is essentially that of multiple regression, except now the manifest variables are regressed on the unobservable latent variables (often referred to in this context as common factors), so that direct estimation of the corresponding regression coefﬁcients ( factor loadings) is not possible.

4.2 The Factor Analysis Model The basis of factor analysis is a regression model linking the manifest variables to a set of unobserved (and unobservable) latent variables. In essence the model assumes that the observed relationships between the manifest variables (as measured by their covariances or correlations) are a result of the relationships of these variables to the latent variables. 65

66

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

(Since it is the covariances or correlations of the manifest variables that that are central to factor analysis we can, in the description of the mathematics of the method given in Display 4.1, assume that the manifest variables all have zero mean.) Display 4.1 Mathematics of the Factor Analysis Model • We assume that we have a set of observed or manifest variables, x = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xq ], assumed to be linked to a smaller number of unobserved latent variables, f1 , f2 , . . . , fk where k < q, by a regression model of the form x1 = λ11 f1 + λ12 f2 + · · · + λ1k fk + u1 , x2 = λ21 f1 + λ22 f2 + · · · + λ2k fk + u2 , .. . xq = λq1 f1 + λq2 f2 + · · · + λqk fk + uq . • The λij ’s are weights showing how each xi depends on the common factors. • The λij ’s are used in the interpretation of the factors, i.e., larger values relate a factor to the corresponding observed variables and from these we infer a meaningful description of each factor. • The equations above may be written more concisely as x = f + u, where

⎛

λ11 ⎜ ..

=⎝ .

L .. .

⎞ λ1k .. ⎟ , . ⎠

λq1

L

λqk

⎛ ⎞ f1 ⎜ .. ⎟ f = ⎝ . ⎠, fk

⎛

⎞ u1 ⎜ ⎟ u = ⎝ ... ⎠ . uq

• We assume that the “residual” terms u1 , . . . , uq are uncorrelated with each other and with the factors f1 , . . . , fk . The elements of u are speciﬁc to each xi and hence are known as speciﬁc variates. • The two assumptions above imply that, given the values of the factors, the manifest variables are independent, that is, the correlations of the observed variables arise from their relationships with the factors. In factor analysis the regression coefﬁcients in are more usually known as factor loadings. • Since the factors are unobserved we can ﬁx their location and scale arbitrarily. We shall assume they occur in standardized form with mean zero and standard deviation one. We shall also assume, initially at least, that the factors are uncorrelated with one another, in which case the factor loadings are the correlations of the manifest variables and the factors.

4.2 The Factor Analysis Model

67

• With these additional assumptions about the factors, the factor analysis model implies that the variance of variable xi , σi2 , is given by σi2 =

k

λ2ij + ψi ,

j =1

where ψi is the variance of ui . • So the factor analysis model implies that the variance of each observed variable can be split into two parts. The ﬁrst, h2i , given by h2i

=

k

λ2ij ,

j =1

is known as the communality of the variable and represents the variance shared with the other variables via the common factors. The second part, ψi , is called the speciﬁc or unique variance, and relates to the variability in xi not shared with other variables. • In addition, the factor model leads to the following expression for the covariance of variables xi and xj : σij =

k

λil λj l .

l=1

• The covariances are not dependent on the speciﬁc variates in any way; the common factors above account for the relationships between the manifest variables. • So the factor analysis model implies that the population covariance matrix, , of the observed variables has the form = + , where = diag(ψi ). • The converse also holds: If can be decomposed into the form given above, then the k-factor model holds for x. • In practice, will be estimated by the sample covariance matrix S (alternatively, the model will be applied to the correlation matrix R), and we will need to obtain estimates of and so that the observed covariance matrix takes the form required by the model (see later in the chapter for an account of estimation methods). • We will also need to determine the value of k, the number of factors, so that the model provides an adequate ﬁt to S or R.

68

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

To apply the factor analysis model outlined in Display 4.1 to a sample of multivariate observations we need to estimate the parameters of the model in some way. ˆ and ˆ for The estimation problem in factor analysis is essentially that of ﬁnding which ˆ ˆ + . ˆ S≈ (If the xi s are standardized, then S is replaced by R.) There are two main methods of estimation leading to what are known as principal factor analysis and maximum likelihood factor analysis, both of which are now brieﬂy described.

4.2.1 Principal Factor Analysis Principal factor analysis is an eigenvalue and eigenvector technique similar in many respects to principal components analysis (see Chapter 3), but operating not directly on S (or R), but on what is known as the reduced covariance matrix, S∗ , deﬁned as ˆ S∗ = S − , ˆ is a diagonal matrix containing estimates of the ψi . where The diagonal elements of S∗ contain estimated communalities—the parts of the variance of each observed variable that can be explained by the common factors. Unlike principal components analysis, factor analysis does not try to account for all observed variance only that shared through the common factors. Of more concern in factor analysis is to account for the covariances or correlations between the manifest variables. To calculate S∗ (or with R replacing S, R∗ ) we need values for the communalities. Clearly we cannot calculate them on the basis of factor loadings as described in Display 4.1 since these loadings still have to be estimated. To get round this seemingly “chicken and egg” situation we need to ﬁnd a sensible way of ﬁnding initial values for the communalities that does not depend on knowing the factor loadings. When the factor analysis is based on the correlation matrix of the manifest variables two frequently used methods are the following: • Take the communality of a variable xi as the square of the multiple correlation coefﬁcient of xi with the other observed variables. • Take the communality of xi as the largest of the absolute values of the correlation coefﬁcients between xi and one of the other variables. Each of these possibilities will lead to higher values for the initial communality when xi is highly correlated with at least some of the other manifest variables, which is essentially what is required. Given initial communality values, a principal components analysis is performed on S∗ , and the ﬁrst k eigenvectors used to provide the estimates of the loadings in the k-factor model. The estimation process can stop here or the loadings obtained at this stage (λˆ ij ) can provide revised communality estimates calculated as kj =1 λˆ 2ij . The

4.3 Estimating the Numbers of Factors

69

procedure is then repeated until some convergence criterion is satisﬁed. Difﬁculties can sometimes arise with this iterative approach if at any time a communality estimate exceeds the variance of the corresponding manifest variable, resulting in a negative estimate of the variable’s speciﬁc variance. Such a result is known as a Heywood case (Heywood, 1931) and is clearly unacceptable since we cannot have a negative speciﬁc variance.

4.2.2 Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis Maximum likelihood is regarded, by statisticians at least, as perhaps the most respectable method of estimating the parameters in the factor analysis model. The essence of this approach is to deﬁne a type of “distance” measure, F , between the observed covariance matrix and the predicted value of this matrix from the factor analysis model. The measure F is deﬁned as F = ln| + | + trace(S| + |−1 ) − ln|S| − q. The function F takes the value zero if + is equal to S and values greater than zero otherwise. Estimates of the loadings and the speciﬁc variances are found by minimizing F ; details are given in Lawley and Maxwell (1971), Mardia et al. (1979), and Everitt (1984, 1987). Minimizing F is equivalent to maximizing L, the likelihood function for the k-factor model, under the assumption of multivariate normality of the data, since L equals − 21 nF plus a function of the observations. As with iterated principal factor analysis, the maximum likelihood approach can also experience difﬁculties with Heywood cases.

4.3 Estimating the Numbers of Factors The decision over how many factors, k, are needed to give an adequate representation of the observed covariances or correlations is generally critical when ﬁtting an exploratory factor analysis model. A k and k + 1 solution will often produce quite different factors and factor loadings for all factors, unlike a principal component analysis in which the ﬁrst k components will be identical in each solution. And as pointed out by Jolliffe (1989), with too few factors there will be too many high loadings, and with too many factors, factors may be fragmented and difﬁcult to interpret convincingly. Choosing k might be done by examining solutions corresponding to different values of k and deciding subjectively which can be given the most convincing interpretation. Another possibility is to use the scree diagram approach described in Chapter 3, although the usefulness of this rule is not so clear in factor analysis since the eigenvalues represent variances of principal components not factors.

70

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

An advantage of the maximum likelihood approach is that it has an associated formal hypothesis testing procedure for the number of factors. The test statistic is U = n min(F ), where n = n + 1 − 16 (2q + 5) − 23 k. If k common factors are adequate to account for the observed covariances or correlations of the manifest variables, then U has, asymptotically, a chi-squared distribution with ν degrees of freedom, where ν=

1 1 (q − k)2 − (q + k). 2 2

In most exploratory studies k cannot be speciﬁed in advance and so a sequential procedure is used. Starting with some small value for k (usually k = 1), the parameters in the corresponding factor analysis model are estimated by maximum likelihood. If U is not signiﬁcant the current value of k is accepted, otherwise k is increased by one and the process repeated. If at any stage the degrees of freedom of the test become zero, then either no nontrivial solution is appropriate or alternatively the factor model itself with its assumption of linearity between observed and latent variables is questionable.

4.4 A Simple Example of Factor Analysis The estimation procedures outlined in the previous section are needed in practical applications of factor analysis where invariably there are fewer parameters in the model than there are independent elements in S or R from which these parameters are to be estimated. Consequently the ﬁtted model represents a genuinely parsimonious description of the data. But it is of some interest to consider a simple example in which the number of parameters is equal to the number of independent elements in R so that an exact solution is possible. Spearman (1904) considered a sample of children’s examination marks in three subjects—Classics (x1 ), French (x2 ), and English (x3 )—from which he calculated the following correlation matrix for a sample of children: ⎛ Classics 1.00 R = French ⎝0.83 English 0.78

⎞ 1.00 0.67

⎠. 1.00

If we assume a single factor, then the appropriate factor analysis model is x1 = λ1 f + u1 , x2 = λ2 f + u2 , x3 = λ3 f + u3 . In this example the common factor, f , might be equated with intelligence or general intellectual ability, and the speciﬁc variates, u1 , u2 , u3 will have small

4.5 Factor Rotation

71

variances if their associated observed variable is closely related to f . Here the number of parameters in the model (6) is equal to the number of independent elements in R, and so by equating elements of the observed correlation matrix to the corresponding values predicted by the single-factor model we will be able to ﬁnd estimates of λ1 , λ2 , λ3 , ψ1 , ψ2 , and ψ3 such that the model ﬁts exactly. The six equations derived from the matrix equality implied by the factor analysis model, namely ⎡ ⎤ ⎤ ⎡ λ1 ψ1 0 0 0⎦ R = ⎣λ2 ⎦ λ1 λ2 λ3 + ⎣ 0 ψ2 0 0 ψ3 λ3 are λˆ 1 λ2 = 0.83, λˆ 1 λ3 = 0.78, λˆ 1 λ4 = 0.67, ψˆ 1 = 1.0 − λˆ 21 , ψˆ 2 = 1.0 − λˆ 22 , ψˆ 3 = 1.0 − λˆ 23 . The solutions of these equations are λˆ 1 = 0.99, ψˆ 1 = 0.02,

λˆ 2 = 0.84, λˆ 3 = 0.79, ψˆ 2 = 0.30, ψˆ 3 = 0.38.

Suppose now that the observed correlations had been ⎞ ⎛ Classics 1.00 ⎠. R = French ⎝0.84 1.00 English 0.60 0.35 1.00 In this case the solution for the parameters of a single factor model is λˆ 1 = 1.2, ψˆ 1 = −0.44,

λˆ 2 = 0.7, ψˆ 2 = 0.51,

λˆ 3 = 0.5, ψˆ 3 = 0.75.

Clearly this solution is unacceptable because of the negative estimate for the ﬁrst speciﬁc variance.

4.5 Factor Rotation Until now we have ignored one problematic feature of the factor analysis model, namely that as formulated in Display 4.1, there is no unique solution for the factor

72

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

loading matrix. We can see that this is so by introducing an orthogonal matrix M of order k × k, and rewriting the basic regression equation linking the observed and latent variables as x = (M)(M f) + u. This “new” model satisﬁes all the requirements of a k-factor model as previously outlined with new factors f ∗ = M f and the new factor loadings M. This model implies that the covariance matrix of the observed variables is = (M)(M) + , which, since MM = I, reduces to = + as before. Consequently factors f with loadings and factors f ∗ with loadings M are, for any orthogonal matrix M, equivalent for explaining the covariance matrix of the observed variables. Essentially then there are an inﬁnite number of solutions to the factor analysis model as previously formulated. The problem is generally solved by introducing some constraints in the original model. One possibility is to require the matrix G given by G = −1 to be diagonal, with its element arranged in descending order of magnitude. Such a requirement sets the ﬁrst factor to have maximal contribution to the common variance of the observed variables, the second has maximal contribution to this variance subject to being uncorrelated with the ﬁrst, and so on (cf. principal components analysis in Chapter 3). The constraints on the factor loadings imposed by a condition such as that given above need to be introduced to make the parameter estimates in the factor analysis model unique. These conditions lead to orthogonal factors that are arranged in descending order of importance and enable an initial factor analysis solution to be found. The properties are not, however, inherent in the factor model, and merely considering such a solution may lead to difﬁculties of interpretation. For example, two consequences of these properties of a factor solution are as follows: • The factorial complexity of variables is likely to be greater than one regardless of the underlying true model; consequently variables may have substantial loadings on more than one factor. • Except for the ﬁrst factor, the remaining factors are often bipolar, that is, they have a mixture of positive and negative loadings. It may be that a more interpretable solution can be achieved using the equivalent model with loadings ∗ = M for some particular orthogonal matrix, M. Such a process is generally known as factor rotation, but before we consider how to choose M, that is, how to “rotate” the factors, we need to address the question “Is factor rotation an acceptable process?” Certainly in the past, factor analysis has been the subject of severe criticism because of the possibility of rotating factors. Critics have suggested that this apparently allows the investigator to impose on the data whatever type of solution they

4.5 Factor Rotation

73

are looking for. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that factor analysis has become popular in some areas precisely because it does enable users to impose their preconceived ideas of the structure behind the observed correlations (Blackith and Reyment, 1971). But, on the whole, such suspicions are not justiﬁed and factor rotation can be a useful procedure for simplifying an exploratory factor analysis. Factor rotation merely allows the ﬁtted factor analysis model to be described as simply as possible; rotation does not alter the overall structure of a solution but only how the solution is described. Rotation is a process by which a solution is made more interpretable without changing its underlying mathematical properties. Initial factor solutions with variables loading on several factors and with bipolar factors can be difﬁcult to interpret. Interpretation is more straightforward if each variable is highly loaded on at most one factor, and if all factor loadings are either large and positive, or near zero, with few intermediate values. The variables are thus split into disjoint sets, each of which is associated with a single factor. This aim is essentially what Thurstone (1931) referred to as simple structure. In more detail such structure has the following properties: • Each row or the factor-loading matrix should contain at least one zero. • Each column of the loading matrix should contain at least k zeros. • Every pair of columns of the loading matrix should contain several variables whose loadings vanish in one column but not in the other. • If the number of factors is four or more, every pair of columns should contain a large number of variables with zero loadings in both columns. • Conversely for every pair of columns of the loading matrix only a small number of variables should have nonzero loadings in both columns. When simple structure is achieved the observed variables will fall into mutually exclusive groups whose loadings are high on single factors, perhaps moderate to low on a few factors, and of negligible size on the remaining factors. The search for simple structure or something close to it begins after an initial factoring has determined the number of common factors necessary and the communalties of each observed variable. The factor loadings are then transformed by post multiplication by a suitably chosen orthogonal matrix. Such a transformation is equivalent to a rigid rotation of the axes of the originally identiﬁed factor space. For a two-factor model the process of rotation can be performed graphically. As an example, consider the following correlation matrix for six school subjects: ⎞ ⎛ 1.00 French English ⎜0.44 1.00 ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ History ⎜0.41 0.35 1.00 ⎟ R= ⎟. ⎜ Arithmetic ⎜0.29 0.35 0.16 1.00 ⎟ ⎠ Algebra ⎝0.33 0.32 0.19 0.59 1.00 Geometry 0.25 0.33 0.18 0.47 0.46 1.00 The initial factor loadings are plotted in Figure 4.1. By referring each variable to the new axes shown, which correspond to a rotation of the original axes through about

74

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Figure 4.1 Plot of factor loadings showing a rotation of original axis.

40 degrees, a new set of loadings that give an improved description of the ﬁtted model can be obtained. The two sets of loadings are given explicitly in Table 4.1 When there are more than two factors, more formal methods of rotation are needed. And during the rotation phase we might choose to abandon one of the assumptions made previously, namely that factors are orthogonal, that is, independent (the condition was assumed initially simply for convenience in describing the factor analysis model). Consequently two types of rotation are possible: • Orthogonal rotation: methods restrict the rotated factors to being uncorrelated. • Oblique rotation: methods allow correlated factors. So the ﬁrst question that needs to be considered when rotating factors is whether or not we should use an orthogonal or oblique rotation? As for many questions posed

Table 4.1 Two-Factor Solution for Correlations of Six School Subjects Unrotated loadings Variable French English History Arithmetic Algebra Geometry

1 0.55 0.57 0.39 0.74 0.72 0.59

2 0.43 0.29 0.45 −0.27 −0.21 −0.13

Rotated loadings 1

2

0.20 0.30 0.05 0.75 0.65 0.50

0.62 0.52 0.55 0.15 0.18 0.20

4.5 Factor Rotation

75

in data analysis, there is no universal answer to this question. There are advantages and disadvantages to using either type of rotation procedure. As a general rule, if a researcher is primarily concerned with getting results that “best ﬁt” his/her data, then the researcher should rotate the factors obliquely. If, on the other hand, the researcher is more interested in the generalizability of his/her results, then orthogonal rotation is probably to be preferred. One major advantage of an orthogonal rotation is simplicity since the loadings represent correlations between factors and manifest variables. This is not the case with an oblique rotation because of the correlations between the factors. Here there are two parts of the solution to consider: • Factor pattern coefﬁcients: regression coefﬁcients that multiply with factors to produce measured variables according to the common factor model. • Factor structure coefﬁcients: correlation coefﬁcients between manifest variables and the factors. Additionally there is a matrix of factor correlations to consider. In many cases where these correlations are relatively small, researchers may prefer to return to an orthogonal solution. There are a variety of rotation techniques although only relatively few are in general use. For orthogonal rotation the two most commonly used techniques are know as varimax and quartimax: • Varimax rotation: originally proposed by Kaiser (1958), this has as its rationale the aim of factors with a few large loadings and as many near-zero loadings as possible. This is achieved by iterative maximization of a quadratic function of the loadings; details are given in Marda et al. (1979). This produces factors that have high correlations with one small set of variables and little or no correlation with other sets. There is a tendency for any general factor to disappear because the factor variance is redistributed. • Quartimax rotation: originally suggested by Carroll (1953) this approach forces a given variable to correlate highly on one factor and either not at all or very low on other factors. Far less popular than varimax. For oblique rotation the two methods most often used are oblimin and promax. • Oblimin rotation: invented by Jennrich and Sampson (1966) this method attempts to ﬁnd simple structure with regard to the factor pattern matrix through a parameter that is used to control the degree of correlation between the factors. Fixing a value for this parameter is not straightforward, but Lackey and Sullivan (2003) suggest that values between about −0.5 and 0.5 are sensible for many applications. • Promax rotation: a method due to Hendrickson and White (1964) that operates by raising the loadings in an orthogonal solution (generally a varimax rotation) to some power. The goal is to obtain a solution that provides the best structure using the lowest possible power loadings and the lowest correlation between the factors.

76

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

As mentioned earlier, factor rotation is often regarded as controversial since it apparently allows the investigator to impose on the data whatever type of solution is required. But this is clearly not the case since although the axes may be rotated about their origin, or may be allowed to become oblique, the distribution of the points will remain invariant. Rotation is simply a procedure that allows new axes to be chosen so that the positions of the points can be described as simply as possible. It should be noted that rotation techniques are also often applied to the results from a principal components analysis in the hope that it will aid in their interpretability. Although in some cases this may be acceptable, it does have several disadvantages which are listed by Jolliffe (1989). The main problem is that the deﬁning property of principal components, namely that of accounting for maximal proportions of the total variation in the observed variables, is lost after rotation.

4.6 Estimating Factor Scores In most applications an exploratory factor analysis will consist of the estimation of the parameters in the model and the rotation of the factors, followed by an (often heroic) attempt to interpret the ﬁtted model. There are occasions, however, when the investigator would like to ﬁnd factor scores for each individual in the sample. Such scores, like those derived in a principal components analysis (see Chapter 3), might be useful in a variety of ways. But the calculation of factor scores is not as straightforward as the calculation of principal components scores. In the original equation deﬁning the factor analysis model, the variables are expressed in terms of the factors, whereas to calculate scores we require the relationship to be in the opposite direction. Bartholomew (1987) makes the point that to talk about “estimating” factor score is essentially misleading since they are random variables, and the issue is really one of prediction. But if we make the assumption of normality, the conditional distribution of f given x can be found. It is N[ −1 x, ( −1 + I)−1 ]. Consequently, one plausible way of calculating factor scores would be to use the sample version of the mean of this distribution, namely ˆ S−1 x, ˆf = where the vector of scores for an individual, x, is assumed to have mean zero, that is, sample means for each variable have already been subtracted. Other possible methods for deriving factor scores are described in Rencher (1995). In many respects the most damaging problem with factor analysis is not the rotational indeterminacy of the loadings, but the indeterminacy of the factor scores.

4.7 Two Examples of Exploratory Factor Analysis

77

4.7 Two Examples of Exploratory Factor Analysis 4.7.1 Expectations of Life The data in Table 4.2 show life expectancy in years by country, age, and sex. The data come from Keyﬁtz and Flieger (1971) and relate to life expectancies in the 1960s. We will use the formal test for number of factors incorporated into the maximum likelihood approach. We can apply this test to the data, assumed to be contained in the dataframe life with the country names labelling the rows and variables names as given in parentheses in Table 4.2, using the following R and S-PLUS code: life.fa1<-factanal(life,factors=1,method="mle") life.fa1 life.fa2<-factanal(life,factors=2,method="mle") life.fa2 life.fa3<-factanal(life,factors=3,method="mle") life.fa3

The results from the test are shown in Table 4.3. These results indicate that a three-factor solution is adequate for the data, although it has to be remembered that with only 31 countries, use of an asymptotic test result may be rather suspect. (The numerical results from R and S-PLUS® may differ a little.) To ﬁnd the details of the three-factor solution given by maximum likelihood we use the single R instruction life.fa3

(In S-PLUS summary(life.fa3) is needed.) The results, shown in Table 4.4, correspond to a varimax-rotated solution (the default for the factanal function). For interest we might also compare this with results from the quartimax rotation technique. The necessary S-PLUS code to ﬁnd this solution is life.fa3<-factanal(life,factors=3,method="mle", rotation="quartimax")summary(life.fa3)

(R does not have the quartimax option in factanal.) The results are shown in Table 4.5. The ﬁrst two factors from both varimax and quartimax are similar. The ﬁrst factor is dominated by life expectancy at birth for both males and females and the second reﬂects life expectancies at older ages. The third factor from the varimax rotation has its highest loadings for the life expectancies of men aged 50 and 75. If using S-PLUS the estimated factor scores are already available in life.fa3$scores. In R the scores have to be requested as follows; scores<-factanal(life,factors=3,method="mle", scores="regression")$scores

78

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Table 4.2 Life Expectancies for Different Countries by Age and Sex Male Age

0 (m0)

25 (m25)

Female

50 (m50)

75 (m75)

0 (w0)

25 (w25)

50 (w50)

75 (w75)

Algeria

63

51

30

13

67

54

34

15

Cameroon

34

29

13

5

38

32

17

6

Madagascar

38

30

17

7

38

34

20

7

Mauritius

59

42

20

6

64

46

25

8

Reunion

56

38

18

7

62

46

25

10

Seychelles

62

44

24

7

69

50

28

14

South Africa (B)

50

39

20

7

55

43

23

8

South Africa (W)

65

44

22

7

72

50

27

9

Tunisia

56

46

24

11

63

54

33

19

Canada

69

47

24

8

75

53

29

10

Cost Rica

65

48

26

9

68

50

27

10

Dominican Republic

64

50

28

11

66

51

29

11

El Salvador

56

44

25

10

61

48

27

12

Greenland

60

44

22

6

65

45

25

9

Grenada

61

45

22

8

65

49

27

10

Guatemala

49

40

22

9

51

41

23

8

Honduras

59

42

22

6

61

43

22

7

Jamaica

63

44

23

8

67

48

26

9

Mexico

59

44

24

8

63

46

25

8

Nicaragua

65

48

28

14

68

51

29

13

Panama

65

48

26

9

67

49

27

10

Trinidad (62)

64

63

21

7

68

47

25

9

Trinidad (67)

64

43

21

6

68

47

24

8

United States (66)

67

45

23

8

74

51

28

10

United States (NW66)

61

40

21

10

67

46

25

11

United States (W66)

68

46

23

8

75

52

29

10

United States (67)

67

45

23

8

74

51

28

10

Argentina

65

46

24

9

71

51

28

10

Chile

59

43

23

10

66

49

27

12

Colombia

58

44

24

9

62

47

25

10

Ecuador

57

46

28

9

60

49

28

11

4.7 Two Examples of Exploratory Factor Analysis

79

Table 4.3 Results from Test for Number of Factors on the Data in Table 4.2 Using R 1. Test of the hypothesis that one factor is sufﬁcient versus the alternative that more are required: The chi square statistic is 163.11 on 20 degrees of freedom. The p-value is <0.0001. 2. Test of the hypothesis that two factors are sufﬁcient versus the alternative that more are required: The chi square statistic is 45.24 on 13 degrees of freedom. The p-value is <0.0001. 3. Test of the hypothesis that three factors are sufﬁcient versus the alternative that more are required: The chi square statistic is 6.73 on 7 degrees of freedom. The p-value is 0.458.

Table 4.4 Maximum Likelihood Three-Factor Solution for Life Expectancy Data After Varimax Rotation Using R Importance of factors: Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

3.38 0.42 0.42

2.08 0.26 0.68

1.64 0.21 0.89

SS loadings Proportion Var Cumulative Var The degrees of freedom for the model is 7. Uniquenesses: M0 M25

M50

M75

W0

W25

W50

W75

0.005

0.066

0.288

0.005

0.011

0.020

0.146

0.362

Loadings: M0 M25 M50 M75 W0 W25 W50 W75

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Communality

0.97 0.65 0.43 — 0.97 0.76 0.54 0.16

0.12 0.17 0.35 0.53 0.22 0.56 0.73 0.87

0.23 0.44 0.79 0.66 — 0.31 0.40 0.28

0.9999 0.6491 0.9018 0.7077 0.9951 0.9890 0.9793 0.8513

The factor scores are shown in Table 4.6 (again the scores from R and S-PLUS may differ a little). We can use the scores to provide a 3-D plot of the data by ﬁrst creating a new dataframe #if using S-PLUS we need scores<-life.fa3$scores lifex<-data.frame(life,scores) attach(lifex)

80

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Table 4.5 Three-Factor Solution for Life Expectancy Data After Quartimax Rotation Using S-PLUS SS loadings Proportion Var Cumulative Var

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

4.57 0.57 0.57

2.13 0.26 0.84

0.37 0.04 0.88

The degrees of freedom for the model is 7. Uniquenesses: M0 M25

M50

M75

W0

W25

W50

W75

0.0000876 0.3508347 0.09818739 0.2923066 0.004925743 0.01100307 0.02074596 0.1486658 Loadings: M0 M25 M50 M75 W0 W25 W50 W75

Factor 1 0.99 0.76 0.66 0.33 0.98 0.90 0.74 0.37

Factor 2 — 0.18 0.57 0.74 — 0.39 0.65 0.80

Factor 3 — 0.21 0.37 0.23 −0.16 −0.14 −0.14 −0.28

Communality 0.9999 0.6491 0.9018 0.7077 0.9951 0.9890 0.9793 0.8513

Table 4.6 Factor Scores from the Three-Factor Solution for the Life Expectancy Data Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Algeria

−0.26

1.92

1.96

Cameroon

−2.84

−0.69

−1.98

Madagascar

−2.82

−1.03

0.29

0.15

−0.36

−0.77

−0.19

0.35

−1.39

0.38

0.90

−0.71

−1.07

0.06

−0.87

Mauritius Reunion Seychelles South Africa (B)

0.95

0.12

−1.02

Tunisia

−0.87

3.52

−0.21

Canada

1.27

0.26

−0.22

Cost Rica

0.52

−0.52

1.06

South Africa (W)

0.11

−0.01

1.94

−0.64

0.82

0.25

Greenland

0.24

−0.67

−0.45

Grenada

0.15

0.11

0.08

−1.48

−0.64

0.62

0.07

−1.93

0.38

Dominican Republic El Salvador

Guatemala Honduras

(Continued)

4.7 Two Examples of Exploratory Factor Analysis

81

Table 4.6 (Continued) Jamaica

0.48

−0.58

Mexico

−0.07

−0.60

0.26

0.28

0.08

1.77

Nicaragua

0.17

Panama

0.47

−0.84

1.43

Trinidad (62)

0.72

−1.07

−0.00

Trinidad (67)

0.82

−1.24

−0.36

United States (66)

1.14

0.20

−0.75

United States (NW66)

0.41

−0.39

−0.74

United States (W66)

1.23

0.40

−0.68

United States (67)

1.14

0.20

−0.75

0.73

0.31

−0.21

Chile

−0.02

0.91

−0.73

Colombia

−0.26

−0.19

0.28

Ecuador

−0.75

0.62

1.36

Argentina

and then using the S-PLUS GUI as described in Chapter 2. The resulting diagram is shown in Figure 4.2. Ordering along the ﬁrst axis reﬂects life expectancy at birth ranging from Cameroon and Madagascar to countries such as the United States. And on the third axis Algeria is prominent because it has high life expectancy amongst men at higher ages with Cameroon at the lower end of the scale with a low life expectancy for men over 50. Algeria Dominican Rep Nicaragua Ecuador

Panama Costa Rica

Tunisia

El Salvador

Guatemala

South Africa(C)

Canada United States (W66) Grenada Argentina Jamaica United States (66) Columbia Mexico United States (67) Seychelles Trinidad(62) Chile South Africa(W) Honduras Trinidad (67) Greenland United States (NW66) Mauritius Reunion

Madagascar

Cameroon

Figure 4.2 Plot of three-factor scores for life expectancy data.

82

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

4.7.2 Drug Usage by American College Students The majority of adult and adolescent Americans regularly use psychoactive substances during an increasing proportion of their lifetime. Various forms of licit and illicit psychoactive substances use are prevalent, suggesting that patterns of psychoactive substance taking are a major part of the individual’s behavioural repertory and have pervasive implications for the performance of other behaviors. In an investigation of these phenomena, Huba et al. (1981) collected data on drug usage rates for 1634 students in the seventh to ninth grades in 11 schools in the greater metropolitan area of Los Angeles. Each participant completed a questionnaire about the number of times a particular substance had ever been used. The substances asked about were as follows: X1. X2. X3. X4. X5. X6. X7. X8. X9. X10. X11. X12. X13.

cigarettes beer wine liquor cocaine tranquillizers drug store medications used to get high heroin and other opiates marijuana hashish inhalants (glue, gasoline, etc.) hallucinogenics (LSD, mescaline, etc.) amphetamine, stimulants

Responses were recorded on a ﬁve-point scale; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

never tried only once a few times many times regularly

The correlations between the usage rates of the 13 substances are shown in Table 4.7. We ﬁrst try to determine the number of factors using the maximum likelihood test. Here the S-PLUS code needs to accommodate the use of the correlation matrix rather than the raw data. We assume the correlation matrix is available as the data frame druguse.cor. The R code for ﬁnding the results of the test for number of factors here is R druguse.fa<-lapply(1:6,function(nf) factanal(covmat=druguse.cor,factors=nf,method="mle", n.obs=1634)

4.7 Two Examples of Exploratory Factor Analysis

83

Table 4.7 Correlation Matrix for Drug Usage Data X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

X1

1

X2

0.447 1

X3

0.442 0.619 1

X4

0.435 0.604 0.583 1

X5

0.114 0.068 0.053 0.115 1

X6

0.203 0.146 0.139 0.258 0.349 1

X7

0.091 0.103 0.110 0.122 0.209 0.221 1

X8

0.082 0.063 0.066 0.097 0.321 0.355 0.201 1

X9

0.513 0.445 0.365 0.482 0.186 0.315 0.150 0.154 1

X10

X11

X12

X13

X10 0.304 0.318 0.240 0.368 0.303 0.377 0.163 0.219 0.534 1 X11 0.245 0.203 0.183 0.255 0.272 0.323 0.310 0.288 0.301 0.302 1 X12 0.101 0.088 0.074 0.139 0.279 0.367 0.232 0.320 0.204 0.368 0.304 1 X13 0.245 0.199 0.184 0.293 0.278 0.545 0.232 0.314 0.394 0.467 0.392 0.511 1

The S-PLUS code here is a little different S-PLUS druguse.list<-list(cov=druguse.cor,center=rep(0,13), n.obs=1634) druguse.fa<-lapply(1:6,function(nf) factanal(covlist=druguse.list,factors=nf,method=”mle”))

The results from the test of number of factors are shown in Table 4.8. The test suggests that a six-factor model is needed. The results from the six-factor varimax solution are obtained from R: S-PLUS:

druguse.fa[[6]] summary(druguse.fa[[6]])

and are shown in Table 4.9. The ﬁrst factor involves cigarettes, beer, wine, liquor, and marijuana and we might label it “social/soft drug usage.” The second factor has high loadings on cocaine, tranquillizers, and heroin. The obvious label for the factor is “hard drug usage.” Factor three is essentially simply amphetamine use, and factor four is hashish use. We will not try to interpret the last two factors even though the formal test for number of factors indicated that a six-factor solution was necessary. It may be that we should not take the results of the formal test too literally. Rather, it may be a better strategy to consider the value of k indicated by the test to be an upper bound on the number of factors with practical importance. Certainly a six-factor solution for a data set with only 13 manifest variables might be regarded as not entirely satisfactory, and clearly we would have some difﬁculties interpreting all the factors.

84

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis Table 4.8 Results of Formal Test for Number of Factors on Drug Usage Data from R 1. Test of the hypothesis that one factor is sufﬁcient versus the alternative that more are required: The chi square statistic is 2278.25 on 65 degrees of freedom. The p-value is <0.00001. 2. Test of the hypothesis that two factor is sufﬁcient versus the alternative that more are required: The chi square statistic is 477.37 on 53 degrees of freedom. The p-value is <0.00001. 3. Test of the hypothesis that three factors are sufﬁcient versus the alternative that more are required: The chi square statistic is 231.95 on 42 degrees of freedom. The p-value is <0.00001. 4. Test of the hypothesis that four factors are sufﬁcient versus the alternative that more are required: The chi square statistic is 113.42 on 32 degrees of freedom. The p-value is <0.00001. 5. Test of the hypothesis that ﬁve factors are sufﬁcient versus the alternative that more are required: The chi square statistic is 60.57 on 23 degrees of freedom. The p-value is <0.00001. 6. Test of the hypothesis that six factors are sufﬁcient versus the alternative that more are required: The chi square statistic is 23.97 on 15 degrees of freedom. The p-value is 0.066.

One of the problems is that with the large sample size in this example, even small discrepancies between the correlation matrix predicted by a proposed model and the observed correlation matrix may lead to rejection of the model. One way to investigate this possibility is to simply look at the differences between the observed and predicted correlations. We shall do this ﬁrst for the six-factor model using the following R and S-PLUS code: pred<-druguse.fa[[6]]$loadings%*%t(druguse.fa[[6]] $loadings)+ diag(druguse.fa[[6]]$uniquenesses) druguse.cor-pred

The resulting matrix of differences is shown in Table 4.10. The differences are all very small, underlining that the six-factor model does describe the data very well. Now let us look at the corresponding matrices for the three- and four-factor solutions found in a similar way; see Table 4.11. Again in both cases the residuals are all relatively small, suggesting perhaps that use of the formal test for number of

4.8 Comparison of Factor Analysis and Principal Components Analysis

85

Table 4.9 Maximum Likelihood of Six-Factor Solution for Drug Usage Data—Varimax Rotation SS loadings Proportion Var Cumulative Var

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

2.30 0.18 0.80

1.43 0.11 0.29

1.13 0.09 0.37

0.95 0.07 0.45

0.68 0.05 0.50

0.61 0.05 0.55

The degrees of freedom for the model is 15. Uniquenesses: X1 X2 0.560

0.368

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

X10

X11

X12

X13

0.374

0.411

0.681

0.526

0.748

0.665

0.324

0.025

0.597

0.630

4r-010

Loadings: X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

0.49 0.78 0.79 0.72 — 0.13 — — 0.43 0.24 0.17 — 0.15

— — — 0.12 0.52 0.56 0.24 0.54 0.16 0.28 0.32 0.39 0.34

— — — 0.10 — 0.32 — 0.10 0.15 0.19 0.16 0.34 0.89

— 0.10 — 0.12 0.13 0.10 — — 0.26 0.87 — 0.19 0.14

0.41 0.11 — 0.16 — 0.14 — — 0.60 0.20 0.15 — 0.14

— — — — 0.16 — 0.42 0.19 0.10 — 0.47 0.26 0.17

factors leads, in this case, to overﬁtting. The three-factor model appears to provide a perfectly adequate ﬁt for these data.

4.8 Comparison of Factor Analysis and Principal Components Analysis Factor analysis, like principal components analysis, is an attempt to explain a set of multivariate data using a smaller number of dimensions than one begins with, but the procedures used to achieve this goal are essentially quite different in the two approaches. Some differences between the two are as follows: • Factor analysis tries to explain the covariances or correlations of the observed variables by means of a few common factors. Principal components analysis is primarily concerned with explaining the variance of the observed variables. • If the number of retained components is increased, say, from m to m + 1, the ﬁrst m components are unchanged. This is not the case in factor analysis, where there can be substantial changes in all factors if the number of factors is unchanged. • The calculation of principal component scores is straightforward. The calculation of factor scores is more complex, and a variety of methods have been suggested.

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13

0.000 −0.001 0.015 −0.018 0.010 0.000 −0.020 −0.005 0.002 0.000 0.013 −0.003 0.000

X1

X3

0.015 −0.002 0.000 −0.001 0.000 −0.005 0.007 0.008 −0.004 0.000 −0.008 −0.001 0.000

X2

−0.001 0.000 −0.002 0.004 0.004 −0.011 −0.002 0.007 0.002 0.000 −0.004 0.005 0.000

−0.018 0.004 −0.001 0.000 −0.007 0.020 −0.002 −0.018 0.004 0.000 0.013 −0.004 0.000

X4 0.010 0.004 0.000 −0.07 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.003 −0.004 0.000 −0.002 −0.008 0.000

X5 0.000 −0.011 −0.005 0.020 0.002 −0.001 0.011 −0.004 −0.003 0.000 −0.002 −0.008 0.000

X6 −0.020 −0.002 0.007 −0.002 0.005 0.011 0.002 −0.018 0.007 0.000 0.005 −0.003 0.000

X7 −0.005 0.007 0.008 −0.018 0.003 −0.004 −0.018 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.002 0.021 0.000

X8 0.002 0.002 −0.004 0.004 −0.004 −0.003 0.007 0.006 0.000 0.000 −0.007 0.002 0.000

X9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

X10

0.013 −0.004 −0.008 0.013 −0.002 −0.002 0.005 0.002 −0.007 0.000 −0.003 −0.019 0.000

X11

Table 4.10 Differences Between Observed and Predicted Correlations for Six-Factor Model Fitted to Drug Usage Data X12 −0.003 0.005 −0.001 −0.004 −0.008 −0.008 −0.003 0.021 0.002 0.000 0.017 −0.003 0.000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

X13

86 4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

0.000 −0.001 0.009 −0.013 0.011 0.009 −0.011 −0.004 0.002 −0.026 0.039 −0.017 0.002

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13

0.000 −0.001 0.008 −0.012 0.010 0.008 −0.014 −0.007 0.001 −0.023 0.037 −0.020 0.000

2. Four factor X1

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13

1. Three factor X1

X3

0.008 −0.001 0.000 0.000 −0.001 −0.005 0.012 0.014 0.001 −0.020 −0.008 0.001 0.000

X2

0.009 −0.001 0.000 0.000 −0.002 −0.004 0.012 0.013 0.001 −0.017 −0.007 0.004 0.002

−0.001 0.000 −0.001 0.002 0.002 −0.014 0.000 0.005 −0.001 0.019 −0.003 0.009 −0.007

−0.001 0.000 −0.001 0.001 0.001 −0.016 −0.002 0.003 −0.001 0.018 −0.005 0.006 0.000

X3

X2

−0.012 0.001 0.000 0.000 −0.005 0.029 −0.015 −0.016 −0.001 0.018 0.001 −0.009 0.000

X4

−0.013 0.002 0.000 0.000 −0.008 0.023 −0.018 −0.020 −0.001 0.014 −0.002 −0.015 0.005

X4

0.010 0.001 −0.001 −0.005 0.002 0.020 −0.014 0.004 −0.003 0.033 −0.018 −0.026 0.000

X5

0.011 0.002 −0.002 −0.008 0.000 0.030 0.038 0.082 −0.002 0.041 0.026 −0.027 −0.076

X5

0.008 −0.016 −0.005 0.029 0.020 0.001 −0.021 0.024 −0.001 0.001 −0.029 −0.025 0.000

X6

0.009 −0.014 −0.004 0.023 0.030 0.002 −0.022 0.024 −0.001 −0.017 −0.035 −0.057 0.040

X6

−0.014 −0.002 0.012 −0.015 −0.014 −0.021 −0.001 −0.018 0.003 −0.042 0.095 0.011 0.000

X7

−0.011 0.000 0.012 −0.018 0.038 −0.022 0.000 0.021 0.006 −0.040 0.116 0.002 −0.038

X7

−0.007 0.003 0.014 −0.016 0.004 0.024 −0.018 0.001 0.003 −0.038 0.003 0.008 0.000

X8

−0.004 0.005 0.013 −0.020 0.082 0.024 0.021 0.000 0.006 −0.035 0.034 −0.003 −0.050

X8

0.001 −0.001 0.001 −0.001 −0.003 −0.001 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.001 −0.002 0.000

X9

0.002 −0.001 0.001 −0.001 −0.002 −0.001 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.001 0.002 −0.002 −0.002

X9

−0.023 0.018 −0.020 0.018 0.033 0.001 −0.042 −0.038 0.000 0.000 −0.029 0.057 0.000

X10

−0.026 0.019 −0.017 0.014 0.041 −0.017 −0.040 −0.035 0.001 0.000 −0.033 0.036 0.010

X10

0.037 −0.005 −0.008 0.001 −0.018 −0.029 0.095 0.003 0.001 −0.029 −0.006 −0.008 0.000

X11

0.039 −0.003 −0.007 −0.002 0.026 −0.035 0.116 0.034 0.002 −0.033 −0.004 −0.022 −0.012

X11

−0.020 0.006 0.001 −0.009 −0.026 −0.025 0.011 0.008 −0.002 0.057 0.028 −0.002 0.000

X12

−0.017 0.009 0.004 −0.015 −0.027 −0.057 0.002 −0.003 −0.002 0.036 0.014 −0.002 0.044

X12

Table 4.11 Differences Between Observed and Predicted Correlations for Three- and Four-Factor Models Fitted to Drug Usage Data

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

X13

0.002 −0.007 0.002 0.005 −0.076 0.040 −0.038 −0.050 −0.002 0.010 −0.012 0.044 0.001

X13

4.8 Comparison of Factor Analysis and Principal Components Analysis 87

88

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

• There is usually no relationship between the principal components of the sample correlation matrix and the sample covariance matrix. For maximum likelihood factor analysis, however, the results of analyzing either matrix are essentially equivalent (this is not true of principal factor analysis). Despite these differences, the results from both types of analysis are frequently very similar. Certainly if the speciﬁc variances are small we would expect both forms of analysis to give similar results. However, if the speciﬁc variances are large they will be absorbed into all the principal components, both retained and rejected, whereas factor analysis makes special provision for them. Lastly, it should be remembered that both principal components analysis and factor analysis are similar in one important respect—they are both pointless if the observed variables are almost uncorrelated. In this case factor analysis has nothing to explain and principal components analysis will simply lead to components which are similar to the original variables.

4.9 Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis The methods described in this chapter have been those of exploratory factor analysis. In such models no constraints are placed on which of the manifest variables load on the common factors. But there is an alternative approach known as conﬁrmatory factor analysis in which speciﬁc constraints are introduced, for example, that particular manifest variables are related to only one of the common factors with their loadings on other factors set a priori to be zero. These constraints may be suggested by theoretical considerations or perhaps from earlier exploratory factor analyses on similar data sets. Fitting conﬁrmatory factor analysis models requires specialized software and readers are referred to Dunn et al. (1993) and Muthen and Muthen (1998).

4.10 Summary Factor analysis has probably attracted more critical comments than any other statistical technique. Hills (1977), for example, has gone so far as to suggest that factor analysis is not worth the time necessary to understand it and carry it out. And Chatﬁeld and Collins (1980) recommend that factor analysis should not be used in most practical situations. The reasons that these authors and others are so openly sceptical about factor analysis arises ﬁrstly from the central role of latent variables in the factor analysis model and secondly from the lack of uniqueness of the factor loadings in the model that gives rise to the possibility of rotating factors. It certainly is the case that since the common factors cannot be measured or observed, the existence of these hypothetical variables is open to question. A factor is a construct operationally deﬁned by its factor loadings, and overly enthusiastic reiﬁcation is not to be recommended.

4.10 Summary

89

It is the case that given one factor-loading matrix, there are an inﬁnite number of factor-loading matrices that could equally well (or equally badly) account for the variances and covariances of the manifest variables. Rotation methods are designed to ﬁnd an easily interpretable solution from among this inﬁnitely large set of alternatives by ﬁnding a solution that exhibits the best simple structure. Factor analysis can be a useful tool for investigating particular features of the structure of multivariate data. Of course, like many models used in data analysis, the one used in factor analysis may be only a very idealized approximation to the truth. Such an approximation may, however, prove a valuable starting point for further investigations.

Exercises 4.1

4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

4.6

Show how the result = + arises from the assumptions of uncorrelated factors, independence of the speciﬁc variates, and independence of common factors and speciﬁc variances. What form does take if the factors are allowed to be correlated? Show that the communalities in a factor analysis model are unaffected by the transformation ∗ = M. Give a formula for the proportion of variance explained by the j th factor estimated by the principal factor approach. Apply the factor analysis model separately to the life expectancies of men and women and compare the results. Apply principal factor analysis to the drug usage data and compare the results with those given in the text from maximum likelihood factor analysis. Investigate the use of oblique rotation for these data. The correlation matrix given below arises from the scores of 220 boys in six school subjects: (1) French, (2) English, (3) history, (4) arithmetic, (5) algebra, and (6) geometry. The two-factor solution from a maximum likelihood factor analysis is shown in Table 4.12. By plotting the derived loadings, ﬁnd an

Table 4.12 Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis for School Subjects Data Factor loadings Subject 1. French 2. English 3. History 4. Arithmetic 5. Algebra 6. Geometry

F1 0.55 0.57 0.39 0.74 0.72 0.60

F2 0.43 0.29 0.45 −0.27 −0.21 −0.13

Communality 0.49 0.41 0.36 0.62 0.57 0.37

90

4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

orthogonal rotation that allows easier interpretation of the results. ⎛ 1.00 French English ⎜0.44 ⎜ History ⎜0.41 R= ⎜ Arithmetic ⎜0.29 Algebra ⎝0.33 Geometry 0.25

⎞ 1.00 0.35 0.35 0.32 0.33

1.00 0.16 0.19 0.18

1.00 0.59 0.47

1.00 0.46

⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟. ⎟ ⎠ 1.00

4.7 The matrix below shows the correlations between ratings on nine statements about pain made by 123 people suffering from extreme pain. Each statement was scored on a scale from 1 to 6 ranging from agreement to disagreement. The nine pain statements were as follows: 1. Whether or not I am in pain in the future depends on the skills of the doctors. 2. Whenever I am in pain, it is usually because of something I have done or not done. 3. Whether or not I am in pain depends on what the doctors do for me. 4. I cannot get any help for my pain unless I go to seek medical advice. 5. When I am in pain I know that it is because I have not been taking proper exercise or eating the right food. 6. People’s pain results from their own carelessness. 7. I am directly responsible for my pain. 8. Relief from pain is chieﬂy controlled by the doctors. 9. People who are never in pain are just plain lucky. ⎛

1.00 ⎜ −0.04 ⎜ ⎜ 0.61 ⎜ ⎜ 0.45 ⎜ R = ⎜ 0.03 ⎜ ⎜ − 0.29 ⎜ − 0.30 ⎜ ⎝ 0.45 0.30

⎞ ⎟ 1.00 ⎟ −0.07 1.00 ⎟ ⎟ −0.12 0.59 1.00 ⎟ ⎟ 0.49 0.03 −0.08 1.00 ⎟ ⎟ 0.43 −0.13 −0.21 0.47 1.00 ⎟ ⎟ 0.30 −0.24 −0.19 0.41 0.63 1.00 ⎟ ⎠ − 0.31 0.59 0.63 −0.14 −0.13 −0.26 1.00 − 0.17 0.32 0.37 −0.24 −0.15 −0.29 0.40 1.00

(a) Perform a principal components analysis on these data and examine the associated scree plot to decide on the appropriate number of components. (b) Apply maximum likelihood factor analysis and use the test described in the chapter to select the necessary number of common factors. (c) Rotate the factor solution selected using both an orthogonal and an oblique procedure, and interpret the results.

5

Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis

5.1 Introduction In Chapter 3 we noted in passing that one of the most useful ways of using principal component analysis was to obtain a low-dimensional “map” of the data that preserved as far as possible the Euclidean distances between the observations in the space of the original q variables. In this chapter we will make this aspect of principal component analysis more explicit and also introduce some other, more direct methods, which aim to produce similar maps of data that have a different form from the usual multivariate data matrix, X. We will consider two such techniques The ﬁrst, multidimensional scaling, is used, essentially, to represent an observed proximity matrix geometrically. Proximity matrices arise either directly from experiments in which subjects are asked to assess the similarity of pairs of stimuli, or indirectly; as a measure of the correlation, covariance, or distance of the pair of stimuli derived from the raw proﬁle data, that is, the variable values in X. An example of the former is shown in Table 5.1. Here, judgements about various brands of cola made by two subjects using a visual analogue scale with anchor points “same” (having a score of 0) and “different” (having a score of 100). In this example, the resulting rating for a pair of colas is a dissimilarity— low values indicate that the two colas are regarded as more alike than high values, and vice versa. A similarity measure would have been obtained had the anchor points been reversed, although similarities are often scaled to lie in the interval [0, 1]. An example of a proximity matrix arising from the basic data matrix is shown in Table 5.2. Here, the Euclidean distances between a number of pairs of countries have been calculated from the birth and death rates of each country. The second technique that will be described in this chapter is correspondence analysis, which is essentially an approach to displaying the associations among a set of categorical variables in a type of scatterplot or map, thus allowing a visual examination of any structure or pattern in the data. Table 5.3, for example, shows a cross classiﬁcation of 538 cancer patients by histological type, and by their response 91

92

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis

Table 5.1 Dissimilarity Data for All Pairs of 10 Colas for Two Subjects Subject 1: Cola number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 16 81 56 87 60 84 50 99 16

0 47 32 68 35 94 87 25 92

0 71 44 21 98 79 53 90

0 71 98 57 73 98 83

0 34 99 19 52 79

0 99 92 17 44

0 45 99 24

0 84 18

0 98

0

Subject 2: Cola number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 20 75 60 80 55 80 45 87 12

0 35 31 70 40 90 80 35 90

0 80 37 20 90 77 50 96

0 70 89 55 75 88 89

0 30 87 25 60 75

0 88 86 10 40

0 40 98 27

0 83 14

0 90

0

Table 5.2 Euclidean Distance Matrix Based on Birth and Death Rates for Five Countries (1) Raw data Country

Birth rate

Death rate

Algeria France Hungary Poland New Zealand

36.4 18.2 13.1 19.0 25.5

14.6 11.7 9.9 7.5 8.8

(2) Euclidean distance matrix Algeria Algeria France Hungary Poland New Zealand

0.00 18.43 23.76 18.79 12.34

France

Hungary

Poland

New Zealand

0.00 5.41 4.28 7.85

0.00 6.37 12.45

0.00 6.63

0.00

5.2 Multidimensional Scaling (MDS)

93

Table 5.3 Hodgkin’s Disease Response Histological type

Positive

Partial

None

Total

LP NS MC LD Total

74 68 154 18 314

18 16 54 10 98

12 12 58 44 126

104 96 266 72 538

to treatment three months after it had begun. A correspondence analysis of these data will be described later.

5.2 Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) There are many methods of multidimensional scaling, and most of them are described in detail in Everitt and Rabe-Hesketh (1997). Here we shall concentrate on just one method, classical multidimensional scaling. Firstly, like all MDS techniques, classical scaling seeks to represent a proximity matrix by a simple geometrical model or map. Such a model is characterized by a set of points x1 , x2 , . . . , xn , in q dimensions, each point representing one of the stimuli of interest, and a measure of the distance between pairs of points. The objective of MDS is to determine both the dimensionality, q, of the model, and the n, q-dimensional coordinates, x1 , x2 , . . . , xn so that the model gives a “good” ﬁt for the observed proximities. Fit will often be judged by some numerical index that measures how well the proximities and the distances in the geometrical model match. In essence this simply means that the larger an observed dissimilarity between two stimuli (or the smaller their similarity), the further apart should be the points representing them in the ﬁnal geometrical model. The question now arises as to how we estimate q, and the coordinate values x1 , x2 , . . . , xn , from the observed proximity matrix? Classical scaling provides an answer to this question based on the work of Young and Householder (1938). To begin we must note that there is no unique set of coordinate values that give rise to these distances, since they are unchanged by shifting the whole conﬁguration of points from one place to another, or by rotation or reﬂection of the conﬁguration. In other words, we cannot uniquely determine either the location or the orientation of the conﬁguration. The location problem is usually overcome by placing the mean vector of the conﬁguration at the origin. The orientation problem means that any conﬁguration derived can be subjected to an arbitrary orthogonal transformation. Such transformations can often be used to facilitate the interpretation of solutions as will be seen later. The essential mathematical details of classical multidimensional scaling are given in Display 5.1.

94

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis

Display 5.1 Mathematical Details of Classical Multidimensional Scaling • To begin our account of the method we shall assume that the proximity matrix we are dealing with is a matrix of Euclidean distances derived from a raw data matrix, X. • In Chapter 1, we saw how to calculate Euclidean distances from X. Multidimensional scaling is essentially concerned with the reverse problem: Given the distances (arrayed in the n × n matrix, D) how do we ﬁnd X? • To begin, deﬁne an n × n matrix B as follows B = XX

(a)

• The elements of B are given by bij =

q

xik xj k .

(b)

k=1

• It is easy to see that the squared Euclidean distances between the rows of X can be written in terms of the elements of B as dij2 = bii + bjj − 2bij .

(c)

• If the b’s could be found in terms of the d’s in the equation above, then the required coordinate value could be derived by factoring B as in (a). • No unique solution exists unless a location constraint is introduced. Usually the center of the points x¯ is set at the origin, so that ni=1 xik = 0 for all k. • These constraints and the relationship given in (b) imply that the sum of the terms in any row of B must be zero. • Consequently, summing the relationship given in (c) over i, over j , and ﬁnally over both i and j , leads to the following series of equations: n

dij2 = T + nbjj ,

i=1 n

dij2 = nbii + T ,

i=1 n n

n

dij2 = 2nT ,

i=1 j =1

where T = i=1 bii is the trace of the matrix B. • The elements of B can now be found in terms of squared Euclidean distances as 1 bij = − dij2 − di.2 − d.j2 + d..2 , 2

5.2 Multidimensional Scaling (MDS)

95

where 1 2 dij , n n

di.2 = d.j2 =

1 n

j =1 n

dij2 ,

i=1

n n 1

2 d..2 = 2 dij. n i=1 j =1

• Having now derived the elements of B in terms of Euclidean distances, it remains to factor it to give the coordinate values. • In terms of its singular value decomposition B can be written as B = VV , where = diag[λ1 , . . . , λn ] is the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues of B and V = [V1 , . . . , Vn ], the corresponding matrix of eigenvectors, normalized so that the sum of squares of their elements is unity, that is, Vi Vi = 1. The eigenvalues are assumed labeled such that λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ · · · ≥ λn . • When D arises from an n × q matrix of full rank, then the rank of B is q, so that the last n − q of its eigenvalues will be zero. • So B can be written as B = V1 1 V1 , where V1 contains the ﬁrst q eigenvectors and 1 the q nonzero eigenvalues. • The required coordinate values are thus 1/2

X = V1 1 1/2

1/2

1/2

where 1 = diag[λ1 , . . . , λp ]. • The best ﬁtting k-dimensional representation is given by the k eigenvectors of B corresponding to the k largest eigenvalues. • The adequacy of the k-dimensional representation can be judged by the size of the criterion k i=1 λi Pk = n−1 . i=1 λi • Values of Pk of the order of 0.8 suggest a reasonable ﬁt. • When the observed dissimilarity matrix is not Euclidean, the matrix B is not positive-deﬁnite. • In such cases some of the eigenvalues of B will be negative; correspondingly, some coordinate values will be complex numbers.

96

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis

• If, however, B has only a small number of small negative eigenvalues, a useful representation of the proximity matrix may still be possible using the eigenvectors associated with the k largest positive eigenvalues. • The adequacy of the resulting solution might be assessed using one of the following two criteria suggested by Mardia et al. (1979) (1) Pk (2)

Pk

k |λi | = ni=1 i=1 |λi | k λ2 = ni=1 i2 i=1 λi

• Alternatively, Sibson (1979) recommends the following: 1. Trace criterion: Choose the number of coordinates so that the sum of their positive eigenvalues is approximately equal to the sum of all the eigenvalues. 2. Magnitude criterion: Accept as genuinely positive only those eigenvalues whose magnitude substantially exceeds that of the largest negative eigenvalue.

5.2.1 Examples of Classical Multidimensional Scaling For our ﬁrst example we will use the small set of multivariate data shown in Table 5.4, and the associated matrix of Euclidean distances will be our proximity matrix. To apply classical scaling to this matrix in R and S-PLUS® we can use the dist function to calculate the Euclidean distances combined with the cmdscale function to do the scaling cmdscale(dist(x),k=5)

Here the ﬁve-dimensional solution (see Table 5.5) achieves complete recovery of the observed distance matrix. We can see this by comparing the original distances with those calculated from the scaling solution coordinates using the following R and S-PLUS code: dist(x)- dist(cmdscale(dist(x), k=5)

The result is essentially a matrix of zeros. The best ﬁt in lower numbers of dimensions uses the coordinate values from the scaling solution in order from one to ﬁve. In fact, when the proximity matrix contains Euclidean distances derived from the raw data matrix, X, classical scaling can be shown to be equivalent to principal component analysis (see Chapter 3), with the derived coordinate values corresponding to the scores on the principal components derived from the covariance matrix. One result of this duality is the classical MDS

5.2 Multidimensional Scaling (MDS)

97

Table 5.4 Multivariate Data and Associated Euclidean Distances (1) Data ⎛ 3 ⎜5 ⎜ ⎜6 ⎜ ⎜1 ⎜ ⎜4 X=⎜ ⎜2 ⎜ ⎜0 ⎜ ⎜0 ⎜ ⎝7 2

4 1 2 1 7 2 4 6 6 1

4 1 0 1 3 5 1 4 5 4

⎞ 1 3⎟ ⎟ 6⎟ ⎟ 3⎟ ⎟ 2⎟ ⎟ 0⎟ ⎟ 1⎟ ⎟ 5⎟ ⎟ 4⎠ 1

6 7 2 0 6 1 1 3 1 3

(2) Euclidean distances ⎛ 0.00 ⎜5.20 0.00 ⎜ ⎜8.37 6.08 0.00 ⎜ ⎜7.87 8.06 6.32 ⎜ ⎜3.46 6.56 8.37 ⎜ D=⎜ 5.66 8.42 8.83 ⎜ ⎜6.56 8.60 8.19 ⎜ ⎜6.16 8.89 8.37 ⎜ ⎝7.42 9.05 6.86 4.36 6.16 7.68

⎞

0.00 9.27 5.29 3.87 6.93 8.89 4.80

0.00 7.87 7.42 6.00 6.56 7.14

0.00 5.00 7.07 7.55 2.64

0.00 5.70 8.83 5.10

0.00 7.42 6.71

0.00 8.00

⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 0.00

is often referred to as principal coordinates analysis (see Gower, 1966). The lowdimensional representation achieved by classical MDS for Euclidean distances (and that produced by principal component analysis) is such that the function φ given by φ=

n

2 2 (drs − dˆrs )

r,s

is minimized. In this expression, drs is the Euclidean distance between observations r and s in the original q-dimensional space, and dˆrs is the corresponding distance in Table 5.5 Five-Dimensional Solution from Classical MDS Applied to the Distance Matrix in Table 5.4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1.60 2.82 1.69 −3.95 3.60 −2.95 −3.47 −0.35 2.94 −1.93

2 2.38 −2.31 −5.14 −2.43 2.78 1.35 0.76 2.31 −0.01 0.33

3 2.23 3.95 −1.29 −0.38 0.26 0.19 −0.30 −2.22 −4.31 1.87

4 −0.37 0.34 0.65 0.69 1.08 −2.82 1.64 2.92 −2.51 −1.62

5 0.12 0.33 −0.05 0.03 −1.26 0.12 −1.94 2.00 −0.19 0.90

98

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis

k-dimensional space (k < q) chosen for the classical scaling solution (equivalently the ﬁrst k components). Now let us look at an example involving distances that are not Euclidean and for this we shall use the data shown in Table 5.6 giving the airline distances between 10 U.S. cities and available as the dataframe airline.dist. These distances are not Euclidean since they relate essentially to journeys along the surface of a sphere. To apply classical scaling to these distances and to see the eigenvalues we can use the following R and S-PLUS code: airline.mds<-cmdscale(airline.dist, k=9, eig=T) airline.mds$eig

The eigenvalues are shown in Table 5.7. Some are negative for these non-Euclidean distances (and there are some small differences between R and SPLUS after the fourth eigenvalue). We will assess how many coordinates we need (1) to adequately represent the observed distance matrix using the criterion, Pk in Display 5.1. The values of the criterion calculated from the eigenvalues in Table 5.7 for the one-dimensional and two-dimensional solutions are (1)

P1

(1) P2

= 0.74,

P1

(2)

= 0.93,

= 0.91,

(1) P2

= 0.99.

These values suggest that the ﬁrst two coordinates will give an adequate representation of the observed distances. The plot of the two-dimensional coordinate values is obtained using # par(pty="s") #use same limits for x and y axes # plot(airline.mds$points[,1],airline.mds$points[,2], type="n",xlab="Coordinate 1",ylab="Coordinate 2", xlim=c(-2000,1500), ylim=c(-2000,1500))

Table 5.6 Airline Distances Between 10 U.S. Cities Atlanta Chicago Denver Houston Los Angeles Miami New York San Francisco Seattle Wash. D.C

Atla

Chic

Denv

Hous

LA

Mia

NY

SF

Seat

Wash

— 587 1212 701 1936 604 748 2139 218 543

587 — 920 940 1745 1188 713 1858 1737 597

1212 920 — 879 831 1726 1631 949 1021 1494

701 940 879 — 1374 968 1420 1645 1891 1220

1936 1745 831 1374 — 2338 2451 347 959 2300

604 1188 1726 968 2338 — 1092 2594 2734 923

748 713 1631 1420 2451 1092 — 2571 2408 205

2139 1858 949 1645 347 2594 2571 — 678 2442

218 1737 1021 1891 959 2734 2408 678 — 2329

543 597 1494 1220 2300 923 205 2442 2329 —

In dataframe airline.dist

5.2 Multidimensional Scaling (MDS)

99

Table 5.7 Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors Arising from Classical Multidimensional Scaling Applied to Distance in Table 5.6 Eigenvalues

City

9.21 × 106 2.20 × 106 1.08 × 106 3.32 × 103 3.86 × 102 −3.26 × 10−1 −9.30 ×10 −2.17 × 103 −9.09 × 103 −1.72 × 106

Atlanta Chicago Denver Houston Los Angeles Miami New York San Francisco Seattle Wash. D.C

1 434.76 412.61 −468.20 175.58 −1206.68 1161.69 1115.56 −1422.69 −1221.54 1018.90

2 −724.22 −55.04 180.66 515.22 465.64 477.98 −199.79 308.66 −887.20 −81.90

text(airline.mds$points[,1],airline.mds$points[,2], labels=row.names(airline.dist))

and is shown in Figure 5.1. (The coordinates obtained from R may have different signs in which case some small amendments to the above code will be needed to get the same diagram as Figure 5.1.) Our last example of the use of classical multidimensional scaling will involve the data shown in Table 5.8. These data show four measurements on male Egyptian skulls from ﬁve epochs. The measurements are MB: Maximum breadth BH: Basibregmatic height

Figure 5.1 Two-dimensional classical MDS solution for airline distances from S-PLUS.

100

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis Table 5.8 Contents of Skull Dataframe. From The Ancient Races of the Thebaid, Arthur Thomson & R. Randall-Maciver (1905). By permission of Oxford University Press 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

EPOCH

MB

BH

c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c4000BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC

131 125 131 119 136 138 139 125 131 134 129 134 126 132 141 131 135 132 139 132 126 135 134 128 130 138 128 127 131 124 124 133 138 148 126 135 132 133 131 133 133 131 131 138 130 131 138 123 130 134 137 126 135

138 131 132 132 143 137 130 136 134 134 138 121 129 136 140 134 137 133 136 131 133 135 124 134 130 135 132 129 136 138 138 134 134 129 124 136 145 130 134 125 136 139 136 134 136 128 129 131 129 130 136 131 136

BL

NH

89 92 99 96 100 89 108 93 102 99 95 95 109 100 100 97 103 93 96 101 102 103 93 103 104 100 93 106 114 101 101 97 98 104 95 98 100 102 96 94 103 98 99 98 104 98 107 101 105 93 106 100 97

49 48 50 44 54 56 48 48 51 51 50 53 51 50 51 54 50 53 50 49 51 47 53 50 49 55 53 48 54 46 48 48 45 51 45 52 54 48 50 46 53 51 56 49 53 45 53 51 47 54 49 48 52

(Continued)

5.2 Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) Table 5.8 (Continued) 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

EPOCH

MB

BH

c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c3300BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c1850BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC

129 134 131 132 130 135 130 137 129 132 130 134 140 138 136 136 126 137 137 136 137 129 135 129 134 138 136 132 133 138 130 136 134 136 133 138 138 137 141 141 135 133 131 140 139 140 138 132 134 135 133 136 134 131 129 136 131

126 139 134 130 132 132 128 141 133 138 134 134 133 138 145 131 136 129 139 126 133 142 138 135 125 134 135 130 131 137 127 133 123 137 131 133 133 134 128 130 131 120 135 137 130 134 140 133 134 135 136 130 137 141 135 128 125

BL

NH

91 101 90 104 93 98 101 96 93 87 106 96 98 95 99 92 95 100 97 101 90 104 102 92 90 96 94 91 100 94 99 91 95 101 96 100 91 107 95 87 99 91 90 94 90 90 100 90 97 99 95 99 93 99 95 93 88

50 49 53 50 52 54 51 52 47 48 50 45 50 47 55 46 56 53 50 50 49 47 55 50 60 51 53 52 50 51 45 49 52 54 49 55 46 54 53 49 51 46 50 60 48 51 52 53 54 50 52 55 52 55 47 54 48

(Continued)

101

102

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis Table 5.8 (Continued) 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

EPOCH

MB

BH

c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC c200BC cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150 cAD150

139 144 141 130 133 138 131 136 132 135 137 136 128 130 138 126 136 126 132 139 143 141 135 137 142 139 138 137 133 145 138 131 143 134 132 137 129 140 147 136

130 124 131 131 128 126 142 138 136 130 123 131 126 134 127 138 138 126 132 135 120 136 135 134 135 134 125 135 125 129 136 129 126 124 127 125 128 135 129 133

BL

NH

94 86 97 98 92 97 95 94 92 100 91 95 91 92 86 101 97 92 99 92 95 101 95 93 96 95 99 96 92 89 92 97 88 91 97 85 81 103 87 97

53 50 53 53 51 54 53 55 52 51 50 49 57 52 47 52 58 45 55 54 51 54 56 53 52 47 51 54 50 47 46 44 54 55 52 57 52 48 48 51

BL: Basialiveolar length NH: Nasal height We shall calculate Mahalanobis generalized distances (see Chapter 1) between each pair of epochs using the mahalanobis function, and apply classical scaling to the resulting distance matrix. In this calculation we shall use the following estimate of the assumed common covariance matrix S, S=

29S1 + 29S2 + 29S3 + 29S4 + 29S5 , 149

where S1 , S2 , . . . , S5 are the covariance matrices of the data in each epoch. We shall then use the ﬁrst two coordinate values to provide a map of the data showing the relationships between epochs. The necessary R and S-PLUS code is

5.2 Multidimensional Scaling (MDS)

103

labs<-rep(1:5,rep(30,5)) centers<-matrix(0,nrow=5,ncol=4) S<-matrix(0,nrow=4,ncol=4) # for(i in 1:5) { centers[i,]<-apply(skulls[labs==i,-1],2,mean) S<-S+29*var(skulls[,-1]) } # S<-S/145 # mahal<-matrix(0,5,5) # for(i in 1:5) { mahal[i,]<-mahalanobis(centers,centers[i,],S) } # win.graph() par(pty="s") coords<-cmdscale(mahal) #set up plotting area xlim<-c(-1.5,1.5) plot(coords,xlab="C1",ylab="C2",type="n",xlim=xlim, ylim=xlim,lwd=2) text(coords,labels=c("c4000BC","c3300BC","c1850BC","c200BC", "cAD150"),lwd=3)

The resulting plot is shown in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2 Two-dimensional solution from classical multidimensional scaling applied to the Mahalanobis distances between epochs for the skull data.

104

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis

The scaling solution for the skulls data is essentially unidimensional, with this single-dimension time ordering the ﬁve epochs. There appears to be a change in the “shape” of the skulls over time with maximum breadth increasing and basialiveolar length decreasing.

5.3 Correspondence Analysis Correspondence analysis has a relatively long history (see de Leeuw, 1985), but for a long period was only routinely used in France, largely due to the almost evangelical efforts of Benzécri (1992). But nowadays the method is used more widely and is often applied to supplement say a standard chi-squared test of independence for two categorical variables forming a contingency table. Mathematically, correspondence analysis can be regarded as either: • A method for decomposing the chi-squared statistic used to test for independence in a contingency table into components corresponding to different dimensions of the heterogeneity between its columns; or • A method for simultaneously assigning a scale to rows and a separate scale to columns so as to maximize the correlation between the two scales. Quintessentially however, correspondence analysis is a technique for displaying multivariate (most often bivariate) categorical data graphically, by deriving coordinates to represent the categories of both the row and column variables, which may then be plotted so as to display the pattern of association between the variables graphically. In essence, correspondence analysis is nothing more than the application of classical multidimensional scaling to a speciﬁc type of distance suitable for categorical data, namely what is known as the chi-squared distance. Such distances are deﬁned in Display 5.2. (A detailed account of correspondence analysis in which its similarity to principal components analysis is stressed is given in Greenacre, 1992.) Display 5.2 Chi-Squared Distance • The general contingency table in which there are r rows and c columns can be written as Columns 1 2 c 1 n11 n12 n1c n1, Rows 2 n21 .. . nrc nr. r nr1 n.c N n.1 using an obvious dot notation.

5.3 Correspondence Analysis

105

• From this we can construct tables of column proportions and row proportions given by (a) Column proportions 1 2 .. . r

1 p11 = n11 /n1

···

pr1 = nr1 /nr.

c p1c = n1c /n1.

prc = nrc /nr.

(b) Row proportions 1 2 .. . r

1 p11 = n11 /n.1

···

pr1 = nr1 /n.1

c p1c = n1c /n.1

prc = nrc /n.1

• The chi-squared distance between columns i and j is now deﬁned as (cols) dij

r

1 = (pki − pkj )2 pk. k=1

where pk. =

nk. N

The chi-square distance is seen to be a weighted Euclidean distance based on column proportions. It will be zero if the two columns have the same values for these proportions. It can also be seen from the weighting factors 1/pk. that rare categories of the column variable have a greater inﬂuence on the distance than common ones. • A similar distance measure can be deﬁned for rows i and j as (rows)

dij

=

c

1 (pik − pj k )2 p.k k=1

where p.k =

n.k N

• A correspondence analysis results from applying classical MDS to each distance matrix in turn and plotting say the ﬁrst two coordinates for column categories and those for row categories on the same diagram, suitably labelled to differentiate the points representing row categories from those representing column categories.

106

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis

• An explanation of how to interpret the derived coordinates is simpliﬁed by considering only a one-dimensional solution. • When the coordinates for both row and columns category are large and positive (or both large and negative), it indicates a positive association between row i and column j ; nij is greater than expected under the assumption of independence. • Similarly, when the coordinates are both large in absolute values but have different signs, the corresponding row and column have a negative association; nij is less than expected under independence. • Finally, when the product of the coordinates is near zero, the association between the row and column the column is low; nij is close to the value expected under independence.

As a simple introductory example, consider the data shown in Table 5.9 concerned with the inﬂuence of a girl’s age on her relationship with her boyfriend. In this table each of 139 girls has been classiﬁed into one of three groups: • No boyfriend; • Boyfriend/no sexual intercourse; • Boyfriend/sexual intercourse. In addition, the age of each girl was recorded and used to divide the girls into ﬁve age groups. The calculation of the chi-squared distance measure can be illustrated using the proportions of girls in age groups 1 and 2 for each relationship type from Table 5.9: (0.26 − 0.27)2 (0.06 − 0.09)2 (0.68 − 0.64)2 Chi-squared distance = + + 0.55 0.24 0.21 = 0.09. Table 5.9 The Inﬂuence of Age on Relationships with Boyfriends Age group 1(AG1)

2(AG2)

3(AG3)

4(AG4)

5(AG5)

No boyfriend (nbf) (row percentage)

21 (68)

21 (64)

14 (58)

13 (42)

8 (40)

Boyfriend/no sexual intercourse (bfns) (row percentage)

8 (26)

9 (27)

6 (25)

8 (26)

2 (10)

Boyfriend/sexual intercourse (bfs) (row percentage)

2 (6)

3 (9)

4 (17)

10 (32)

10 (50)

Totals

31

33

24

31

20

NOTE: Age groups: (1) less than 16, (2) 16–17, (3) 17–18, (4) 18–19, (5) 19–20.

5.3 Correspondence Analysis

107

This is similar to ordinary Euclidean distance but differs in the division of each term by the corresponding average proportion. In this way the chi-squared distance measure compensates for the different levels of occurrence of the categories. (More formally, the choice of the chi-squared distance for measuring interproﬁle similarity can be justiﬁed as a way of standardizing variables under a multinomial or Poisson distributional assumption; see Greenacre, 1992.) The complete set of chi-squared distances for all pairs of age groups can be arranged into the following matrix: 1 age group1 0.00 age group2 ⎜ 0.09 ⎜ dcols = age group3 ⎜ 0.26 age group4 ⎝ 0.66 age group5 1.07 ⎛

2 0.09 0.00 0.19 0.59 1.01

3 0.26 0.19 0.00 0.41 0.83

4 0.66 0.59 0.41 0.00 0.51

5 ⎞ 1.07 1.01 ⎟ ⎟ 0.83 ⎟ 0.51 ⎠ 0.00

The corresponding matrix for rows is 1 No boyfriend 0.00 drows = Boyfriend/no sex ⎝ 0.21 Boyfriend/sex 0.93

2 0.21 0.00 0.93

⎛

3 ⎞ 0.93 0.93 ⎠ 0.00

Applying classical MDS to each of these distance matrices gives the twodimensional coordinates shown in Table 5.10. Plotting those with suitable labels and with the axes suitably scaled to reﬂect the greater variation on dimension one than on dimension two is achieved using the R and S-PLUS code: r1<-cmdscale(dcols,eig=T) c1<-cmdscale(drows,eig=T) par(pty="s") plot(r1$points,xlim=range(r1$points[,1],c1$points[,1]), ylim=range(r1$points[,1],c1$points[,1]),type="n", xlab="Coordinate 1",ylab="Coordinate 2",lwd=2)

Table 5.10 Derived Correspondence Analysis Coordinates for Table 5.9 No boyfriend Boyfriend/no sexual intercourse Boyfriend/sexual intercourse Age group 1 Age group 2 Age group 3 Age group 4 Age group 5

x

y

−0.304 −0.312 0.617 −0.402 −0.340 −0.153 0.225 0.671

−0.102 0.101 0.000 0.062 0.004 −0.003 −0.152 0.089

108

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis

text(r1$points,labels=c("AG1","AG2","AG3","AG4","AG5"),lwd=2) text(c1$points,labels=c("nobf","bfns","bfs"),lwd=4) abline(h=0,lty=2) abline(v=0,lty=2)

to give Figure 5.3. The points representing the age groups in Figure 5.4 give a two-dimensional representation of this distance, with the Euclidean distance between two points representing the chi-squared distance between the corresponding age groups. (This is similar for the points representing each type of relationship.) For a contingency table with I rows and J columns, it can be shown that the chi-squared distances can be represented exactly in min{I − 1, J − 1} dimensions; here since I = 3 and J = 5, this means that the Euclidean distances in Figure 5.4 will equal the corresponding chi-squared distances. For example, the correspondence analysis coordinates for age groups 1 and 2 taken from Table 5.10 are Age group 1 2

x

y

−0.403 −0.339

0.062 0.004

Figure 5.3 Classical multidimensional scaling of data in Table 5.9.

5.3 Correspondence Analysis

109

The corresponding Euclidean distance is calculated as (−0.403 − 0.339)2 + (0.062 − 0.004)2 = 0.09 which agrees with the chi-squared distance between the two age groups calculated earlier. When both I and J are greater than 3, an exact two-dimensional representation of the chi-squared distances is not possible. In such cases the derived two-dimensional coordinates will give only an approximate representation, and so the question of the adequacy of the ﬁt will need to be addressed. In some of these cases more than two dimensions may be required to given an acceptable ﬁt. A correspondence analysis is interpreted by examining the positions of the row categories and the column categories as reﬂected by their respective coordinate values. The values of the coordinates reﬂect associations between the categories of the row variable and those of the column variable. If we assume that a twodimensional solution provides an adequate ﬁt, then row points that are close together indicate row categories that have similar proﬁles (conditional distributions) across the columns. Column points that are close together indicate columns with similar proﬁles (conditional distributions) down the rows. Finally, row points that are close to column points represent combinations that occur more frequently than would be expected under an independence model, that is, one in which the categories of the row variable are unrelated to the categories of the column variable. Let’s now look at two further examples of the application of correspondence analysis.

5.3.1 Smoking and Motherhood Table 5.11 shows a set of frequency data ﬁrst reported by Wermuth (1976). The data show the distribution of birth outcomes by age of mother, length of gestation, and whether or not the mother smoked during the prenatal period. We shall consider the data as a two-dimensional contingency table with four row categories and four column categories. Table 5.11 Smoking and Motherhood Premature

Full term

Died in 1st year (pd)

Alive at year 1 (pa)

Died in 1st year (ftd)

Alive at year 1 (fta)

Young mothers Nonsmokers (YN) Smokers (YS)

50 9

315 40

24 6

4012 459

Older mothers Nonsmokers (ONS) Smokers (YS)

41 4

147 11

14 1

1594 124

110

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis

The obvious question of interest for the data in Table 5.11 is whether or not a mother’s smoking puts a newborn baby at risk. However, several other questions might also be of interest. Are smokers more likely to have premature babies? Are older mothers more likely to have premature babies? And how does smoking affect premature babies? The chi-squared statistic for testing the independence of the two variables forming Table 5.11 takes the value 19.11 with 9 degrees of freedom; the associated p-value is 0.024. So it appears that “type” of mother is related to what happens to the newborn baby. We shall now examine how the results from a correspondence analysis can shed a little more light on this rather general ﬁnding. The relevant chi-squared distance matrices for these data are: ⎛

1

1 0.00 ⎜ 2 ⎜ 0.30 dcols = ⎜ 3 ⎝ 0.27 4 0.37

2

3

0.30 0.00 0.23 0.07

0.27 0.23 0.00 0.28

4

⎞ 0.37 ⎟ 0.07 ⎟ ⎟ 0.28 ⎠ 0.00

Figure 5.4 Two-dimensional solution for classical MDS applied to the motherhood and smoking data in Table 5.11.

5.3 Correspondence Analysis

⎛

1

1 0.00 ⎜ 2 ⎜ 0.10 drows = ⎜ 3 ⎝ 0.11 4 0.15

2

3

0.10 0.00 0.07 0.11

0.11 0.07 0.00 0.05

111

4

⎞ 0.15 ⎟ 0.11 ⎟ ⎟ 0.05 ⎠ 0.00

Applying classical MDS and plotting the two-dimensional solution as above gives Figure 5.4. This diagram suggests that young mothers who smoke tend to have more full-term babies who then die in their ﬁrst year, and older mothers who smoke have rather more than expected premature babies who die in the ﬁrst year. It does appear that smoking is a risk factor for death in the ﬁrst year of the baby’s life, and that age is associated with length of gestation, with older mothers delivering more premature babies.

5.3.2 Hodgkin’s Disease The data shown in Table 5.3 were recorded during a study of Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes; the study is described in Hancock et al. (1979). Each of 538 patients with the disease was classiﬁed by histological type, and by their response to treatment three months after it had begun. The histological classiﬁcation is: • • • •

lymphocyte predominance (LP), nodular sclerosis (NS), mixed cellularity (MC), lymphocyte depletion (LD).

The key question is, “What, if any, is the relationship between histological type and response to treatment?” Here the chi-squared statistic takes the value 75.89 with 6 degrees of freedom. The associated p-value is very small. Clearly histological classiﬁcation and response to treatment are related, but can correspondence analysis help in uncovering more about this association? In this example the two-dimensional solution from applying classical MDS to the chi-squared distances gives a perfect ﬁt. The resulting scatterplot is shown in Figure 5.5. The positions of the points representing histological classiﬁcation and response to treatment in this diagram imply the following: • Lymphocyte depletion tends to result in no response to treatment. • Nodular sclerosis and lymphocyte predominance are associated with a positive response to treatment. • Mixed cellularity tends to result in a partial response to treatment.

112

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis

Figure 5.5 Classical MDS two-dimensional solution for Hodgkin’s disease data.

5.4 Summary Multidimensional scaling and correspondence analysis both aim to help in the understanding of particular types of data by displaying the data graphically. Multidimensional scaling applied to proximity matrices is often useful in uncovering the dimensions on which similarity judgments are made, and correspondence analysis often allows more insight into the pattern of relationships in a contingency table then a simple chi-squared test.

Exercises 5.1 What is mean by the horseshoe effect in multidimensional scaling solutions? (See Everitt and Rabe-Hesketh, 1997.) Create a similarity matrix as follows: sij = 9 if i = j, = 8 if 1 ≤ |i − j | ≤ 3, .. . = 1 if 2 ≤ |i − j | ≤ 2, = 0 if |i − j | > 25.

5.4 Summary

113

Table 5.12 Dissimilarity Matrix for a Set of Eight Legal Offenses Offense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 21.1 71.2 36.4 52.1 89.9 53.0 90.1

0 54.1 36.4 54.1 75.2 73.0 93.2

0 36.4 52.1 36.4 75.2 71.2

0 0.7 54.1 52.1 63.4

0 53.0 36.4 52.1

0 88.3 36.4

0 73.0

0

Offenses: (1) assault and battery, (2) rape, (3) embezzlement, (4) perjury, (5) libel, (6) burglary, (7) prostitution, (8) receiving stolen goods.

5.2

5.3 5.4

5.5

Convert the resulting similarities into dissimilarities using δij = sii + sjj − 2sij and ﬁnd the two-dimensional conﬁguration given by classical multidimensional scaling. The conﬁguration should clearly show the horseshoe effect. Show that classical multidimensional scaling applied to Euclidean distances calculated from a multivariate data matrix X is equivalent to principal components analysis, with the derived coordinate values corresponding to the scores on the principal components found from the covariance matrix of X. Write an S-PLUS (or R) function to calculate the chi-squared distance matrices for both rows and columns in a two-dimensional contingency table. Table 5.12 summarizes data collected during a survey in which subjects were asked to compare a set of eight legal offenses, and to say for each one how unlike it was, in terms of seriousness, from the others. Each entry in the table shows the percentage of respondents who judged that the two offenses are very dissimilar. Find a two-dimensional scaling solution and try to interpret the dimensions underlying the subjects’ judgements. The data shown in Table 5.13 given the hair and eye color of a large number of people. Find the two-dimensional correspondence analysis solution for the data and plot the results.

Table 5.13 Hair Color and Eye Color of a Sample of Individuals Hair color Eye color

Fair

Red

Medium

Dark

Black

Light Blue Medium Dark

688 326 343 98

116 38 84 48

584 241 909 403

188 110 412 681

4 3 26 81

114

5. Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis

Table 5.14 Suicides by Method, Sex, and Age Year

Shooting Stabbing Blunt instrument Poison Manual violence Strangulation Smothering/drowning

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

15 95 23 9 47 43 26

15 113 16 4 60 45 16

31 94 34 8 54 43 20

17 125 34 3 70 53 24

42 124 35 5 69 51 15

49 126 33 3 66 63 15

38 148 41 1 70 47 15

27 127 41 4 60 51 15

5.6 The data in Table 5.14 shows the methods by which victims of persons convicted for murder were killed between 1970 and 1977. How many dimensions would be needed for an exact correspondence analysis solution for these data? Use the ﬁrst three correspondence analysis coordinates to plot a 3 × 3 scatterplot matrix (see Chapter 1). Interpret the results.

6

Cluster Analysis

6.1 Introduction Cluster analysis is a generic term for a wide range of numerical methods for examining multivariate data with a view to uncovering or discovering groups or clusters of observations that are homogeneous and separated from other groups. In medicine, for example, discovering that a sample of patients with measurements on a variety of characteristics and symptoms actually consists of a small number of groups within which these characteristics are relatively similar, and between which they are different, might have important implications both in terms of future treatment and for investigating the aetiology of a condition. More recently cluster analysis techniques have been applied to microarray data (Alon et al., 1999) and image analysis (Everitt and Bullmore, 1999). Clustering techniques essentially try to formalize what human observers do so well in two or three dimensions. Consider, for example, the scatterplot shown in Figure 6.1. The conclusion that there are two natural groups or clusters of dots is reached with no conscious effort or thought. Clusters are identiﬁed by the assessment of the relative distances between points and, in this example, the relative homogeneity of each cluster and the degree of their separation makes the task relatively simple. Detailed accounts of clustering techniques are available in Everitt et al. (2001) and Gordon (1999). Here we concentrate on three types of clustering procedures. • Agglomerative hierarchical methods; • K-means type methods; • Classiﬁcation maximum likelihood methods.

6.2 Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering In a hierarchical classiﬁcation the data are not partitioned into a particular number of classes or clusters at a single step. Instead the classiﬁcation consists of a series of partitions that may run from a single “cluster” containing all individuals, to n clusters each containing a single individual. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering 115

116

6. Cluster Analysis

Figure 6.1 Bivariate data showing the presence of three clusters.

techniques produce partitions by a series of successive fusions of the n individuals into groups. Once made, however, such fusions are irreversible, so that when an agglomerative algorithm has placed two individuals in the same group, they cannot subsequently appear in different groups. Since all agglomerative hierarchical techniques ultimately reduce the data to a single cluster containing all the individuals, the investigator seeking the solution with the “best” ﬁtting number of clusters will need to decide which division to choose. The problem of deciding on the “correct” number of clusters will be taken up later. An agglomerative hierarchical clustering procedure produces a series of partitions of the data, Pn , Pn−1 , . . . , P1 . The ﬁrst, Pn , consists of n single-member clusters, and the last, P1 , consists of a single group containing all n individuals. The basis operation of all methods is similar: (START) Clusters C1 , C2 , . . . , Cn each containing a single individual. (1) Find the nearest pair of distinct clusters, say Ci and Cj , merge Ci and Cj , delete Cj and decrease the number of clusters by one. (2) If number of clusters equals one then stop, else return to 1. At each stage in the process the methods fuse individuals or groups of individuals which are closest (or most similar). The methods begin with an interindividual distance matrix (e.g., one containing Euclidean distances as deﬁned in Chapter 1), but as groups are formed, distance between an individual and a group containing several individuals or between two groups of individuals will need to be calculated. How such distances are deﬁned leads to a variety of different techniques; see the next subsection.

6.2 Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering

117

Figure 6.2 Example of a dendrogram. From Finding Groups in Data: Introduction to Cluster Analysis, Kaufman and Rousseeuw. Copyright © 1990. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hierarchic classiﬁcations may be represented by a two-dimensional diagram known as a dendrogram, which illustrates the fusions made a each stage of the analysis. An example of such a diagram is given in Figure 6.2. The structure of Figure 6.2 resembles an evolutionary tree (see Figure 6.3), and it is in biological applications that hierarchical classiﬁcations are most relevant and most justiﬁed

Figure 6.3 Evolutionary tree. From Finding Groups in Data: Introduction to Cluster Analysis, Kaufman and Rousseeuw. Copyright © 1990. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

118

6. Cluster Analysis

(although this type of clustering has also been used in many other areas). According to Rohlf (1970), a biologist, “all things being equal,” aims for a system of nested clusters. Hawkins et al. (1982), however, issue the following caveat: “users should be very wary of using hierarchic methods if they are not clearly necessary.”

6.2.1 Measuring Intercluster Dissimilarity Agglomerative hierarchical clustering techniques differ primarily in how they measure the distances between or similarity of two clusters (where a cluster may, at times, consist of only a single individual). Two simple intergroup measures are dAB = min(dij ), i∈A i∈B

dAB = max(dij ), i∈A i∈B

where dAB is the distance between two clusters A and B, and dij is the distance between individuals i and j . This could be Euclidean distance (see Chapter 1) or one of a variety of other distance measures; see Everitt et al., 2001, for details. The ﬁrst intergroup dissimilarity measure above is the basis of single linkage clustering, the second that of complete linkage clustering. Both these techniques have the desirable property that they are invariant under monotone transformations of the original interindividual dissimilarities or distances. A further possibility for measuring intercluster distance or dissimilarity is dAB =

1

dij , nA nB i∈A i∈B

where nA and nB are the number of individuals in clusters A and B. This measure is the basis of a commonly used procedure known as group average clustering. All three intergroup measures described here are illustrated in Figure 6.4. To illustrate the use of single linkage, complete linkage, and group average clustering we shall apply each method to the life expectancy data from the previous chapter (see Table 4.2). Here we assume that the eight life expectancies for each country are contained in the data frame life (see Chapter 4). The following R and S-PLUS code will calculate the Euclidean distance matrix for the countries, apply each of the clustering methods mentioned above, and then plot the resulting dendrograms, labelled with the country name: R #set up plotting area to take three side-by-side plots country<-row.names(life) par(mfrow=c(1,3)) #use dist to get Euclidean distance matrix, hclust to #apply single linkage and plclust to plot dendrogram plclust(hclust(dist(life),method="single"), labels=country,ylab="Distance")

6.2 Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering title("(a) Single linkage") plclust(hclust(dist(life),method="complete"), labels=country,ylab="Distance") title("(b) Complete linkage") plclust(hclust(dist(life),method="average"), labels=country,ylab="Distance") title("(c) Average linkage") S-PLUS country<-row.names(life) par(mfrow=c(1,3)) plclust(hclust(dist(life),method="connected"), labels=country,ylab="Distance") title("(a) Single linkage") plclust(hclust(dist(life),method="compact"), labels=country,ylab="Distance") title("(b) Complete linkage") plclust(hclust(dist(life),method="average"), labels=country,ylab="Distance") title("(c) Average linkage")

The resulting diagram is shown in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.4 Intercluster distance measures.

119

5

Distance 10

15

20

Trinidad(62)

Tunisia

(a) Single linkage

20

40

60

(b) Complete linkage

10

20

30

40

(c) Average linkage

Figure 6.5 Single linkage, complete linkage, and average linkage dendrograms for the life expectancy data.

0 Cameroon Madagascar

South Africa(C) Guatemala Algeria Reunion Seychelles Costa Rica Panama Argentina South Africa(W) United States (66) United States (67) Canada United States (W66) Dominican Rep Nicaragua United States (NW66) Honduras Chile Trinidad (67) Grenada Jamaica Ecuador El Salvador Mexico Columbia Mauritius Greenland

Distance 0 Trinidad(62) Canada United States (W66) Argentina South Africa(W) United States (66) United States (67) Trinidad (67) United States (NW66) Chile Seychelles Grenada Jamaica Reunion Mexico Columbia Honduras Mauritius Greenland Algeria Costa Rica Panama Dominican Rep Nicaragua Tunisia El Salvador Ecuador South Africa(C) Guatemala Cameroon Madagascar

Distance 0 Cameroon Madagascar South Africa(C) Guatemala Algeria Tunisia United States (66) United States (67) Canada United States (W66) South Africa(W) Argentina Costa Rica Panama Dominican Rep Nicaragua Reunion El Salvador Ecuador Honduras Mexico Columbia Mauritius Greenland Seychelles Chile Grenada Jamaica Trinidad (67) United States (NW66)

Trinidad(62)

120

6. Cluster Analysis

6.2 Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering

121

There are differences and similarities between the three dendrograms. Here we shall concentrate on the results given by complete linkage and we will examine the clustering found by “cutting” the complete linkage dendrogram at height 21 using the following R and S-PLUS® code: R four<-cutree(hclust(dist(life),method="complete"),h=21) S-PLUS four<-cutree(hclust(dist(life),method="compact"),h=21)

The resulting clusters in terms of country labels can be found from # country.clus<-lapply(1:5,function(nc)country[four==nc]) country.clus

The results from S-PLUS are shown in Table 6.1. (The group order differs in R, although the groups are the same.) The means for the countries in each cluster can be found as follows: country.mean<-lapply(1:5,function(nc) apply(life[four==nc,],2,mean)) country.mean

The results for the S-PLUS order of clusters are shown in Table 6.2. The S-PLUS clusters can be shown on a scatterplot matrix of the data using pairs(life,panel=function(x,y) text(x,y,four))

The resulting plot is shown in Figure 6.6. This diagram suggests that the evidence for ﬁve distinct clusters in the data is not convincing. Table 6.1 Clustering Solution from Complete Linkage Cluster 1 South Africa (W), Canada, Trinidad (62), USA (66) USA (W66), USA (67), Argentina Cluster 2 Algeria, Tunisia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Ecuador Cluster 3 Mauritius, Reunion, Seychelles, Greenland Grenada, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico Trinidad (67), USA (NW66), Chile, Columbia Cluster 4 Cameroon, Madagascar Cluster 5 South Africa (C), Guatemala

122

6. Cluster Analysis

Table 6.2 Mean Life Expectancies for the Five Clusters from Complete Linkage Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5

m0

m25

m50

m75

w0

w25

w50

w75

66.4 61.4 60.1 36.0 49.5

48.0 47.6 42.8 29.5 39.5

22.9 26.9 22.0 15.0 21.0

7.9 10.8 7.6 6.0 8.0

72.7 65.0 64.9 38.0 53.0

50.7 50.8 46.8 33.0 42.0

27.7 29.3 25.3 18.5 23.0

9.7 12.6 9.7 6.5 8.0

Figure 6.6 Scatterplot of life expectancy data showing ﬁve cluster solution from complete linkage.

6.3 K-Means Clustering The k-means clustering technique seeks to partition a set of data into a speciﬁed number of groups, k, by minimizing some numerical criterion, low values of which are considered indicative of a “good” solution. The most commonly used approach, for example, is to try to ﬁnd the partition of the n individuals into k groups, which minimizes the within-group sum of squares over all variables. The problem then appears relatively simple; namely, consider every possible partition of the n individuals into k groups, and select the one with the lowest within-groupsum of squares.

6.3 K-Means Clustering

123

Unfortunately, the problem in practice is not so straightforward. The numbers involved are so vast that complete enumeration of every possible partition remains impossible even with the fastest computer. To illustrate the scale of the problem: n

k

Number of possible partitions

15 20 25 100

3 4 8 5

2, 375, 101 45, 232, 115, 901 690, 223, 721, 118, 368, 580 1068

The impracticability of examining every possible partition has led to the development of algorithms designed to search for the minimum values of the clustering criterion by rearranging existing partitions and keeping the new one only if it provides an improvement. Such algorithms do not, of course, guarantee ﬁnding the global minimum of the criterion. The essential steps in these algorithms are as follows: 1. Find some initial partition of the individuals into the required number of groups. (Such an initial partition could be provided by a solution from one of the hierarchical clustering techniques described in the previous section.) 2. Calculate the change in the clustering criterion produced by “moving” each individual from its own to another cluster. 3. Make the change that leads to the greatest improvement in the value of the clustering criterion. 4. Repeat steps (2) and (3) until no move of an individual causes the clustering criterion to improve. To illustrate the k-means approach with minimization of the within-clusters sum of squares criterion we shall apply it to the data shown in Table 6.3 which shows the chemical composition of 48 specimens of Romano-British pottery, determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry, for nine oxides (Tubb et al., 1980). Because the variables are on very different scales they will need to be standardized in some way before applying k-means clustering. In what follows we will divide each variable’s values by the range of the variable. Assuming that the data are contained in a matrix pottery.data, this standardization can be applied in R and S-PLUS as follows: rge<-apply(pottery.data,2,max)-apply(pottery.data,2,min) pottery.dat<-sweep(pottery.data,2,rge,FUN="/")

The k-means approach can be used to partition the states into a prespeciﬁed number of clusters set by the investigator. In practice, solutions for a range of values for number of groups are found, but the question remains as to the “optimal” number of clusters for the data. A number of suggestions have been made as to how to tackle this question (see Everitt et al., 2001), but none is completely satisfactory. Here, we shall examine the value of the within-group sum of squares associated

124

6. Cluster Analysis

Table 6.3 Results of Chemical Analyses of Romano British Pottery from Tubb et al. (1980) reprinted by kind permission of Blackwell Publishing No

Kiln

Al2 O3

Fe2 O3

MgO

CaO

Na2 O

K2 O

TiO2

MnO

BaO

1

1

18.8

9.52

2.00

0.79

0.40

3.20

1.01

0.077

0.015

2

1

16.9

7.33

1.65

0.84

0.40

3.05

0.99

0.067

0.018

3

1

18.2

7.64

1.82

0.77

0.40

3.07

0.98

0.087

0.014

4

1

16.9

7.29

1.56

0.76

0.40

3.05

1.00

0.063

0.019

5

1

17.8

7.24

1.83

0.92

0.43

3.12

0.93

0.061

0.019

6

1

18.8

7.45

2.06

0.87

0.25

3.26

0.98

0.072

0.017

7

1

16.5

7.05

1.81

1.73

0.33

3.20

0.95

0.066

0.019

8

1

18.0

7.42

2.06

1.00

0.28

3.37

0.96

0.072

0.017

9

1

15.8

7.15

1.62

0.71

0.38

3.25

0.93

0.062

0.017

10

1

14.6

6.87

1.67

0.76

0.33

3.06

0.91

0.055

0.012

11

1

13.7

5.83

1.50

0.66

0.13

2.25

0.75

0.034

0.012

12

1

14.6

6.76

1.63

1.48

0.20

3.02

0.87

0.055

0.016

13

1

14.8

7.07

1.62

1.44

0.24

3.03

0.86

0.080

0.016

14

1

17.1

7.79

1.99

0.83

0.46

3.13

0.93

0.090

0.020

15

1

16.8

7.86

1.86

0.84

0.46

2.93

0.94

0.94

0.20

16

1

15.8

7.65

1.94

0.81

0.83

3.33

0.96

0.112

0.019

17

1

18.6

7.85

2.33

0.87

0.39

3.17

0.98

0.081

0.018

18

1

16.9

7.87

1.83

1.31

0.53

3.09

0.95

0.092

0.023

19

1

18.9

7.58

2.05

0.83

0.13

3.29

0.98

0.072

0.015

20

1

18.0

7.50

1.94

0.69

0.12

3.14

0.93

0.035

0.017

21

1

17.8

7.28

1.92

0.81

0.18

3.15

0.90

0.067

0.017

22

2

14.4

7.00

4.30

0.15

0.51

4.25

0.79

0.160

0.019

23

2

13.8

7.08

3.43

0.12

0.17

4.14

0.77

0.144

0.020

24

2

14.6

7.09

3.88

0.13

0.20

4.36

0.81

0.124

0.019

25

2

11.5

6.37

5.64

0.16

0.14

3.89

0.69

0.087

0.009

26

2

13.8

7.06

5.34

0.20

0.20

4.31

0.71

0.101

0.021

27

2

10.9

6.26

3.47

0.17

0.22

3.40

0.66

0.109

0.010

28

2

10.1

4.26

4.26

0.20

0.18

3.32

0.59

0.149

0.017

29

2

11.6

5.78

5.91

0.18

0.16

3.70

0.65

0.082

0.015

30

2

11.1

5.49

4.52

0.29

0.30

4.03

0.63

0.080

0.016

31

2

13.4

6.92

7.23

0.28

0.20

4.54

0.69

0.163

0.017

32

2

12.4

6.13

5.69

0.22

0.54

4.65

0.70

0.159

0.015

33

2

13.1

6.64

5.51

0.31

0.24

4.89

0.72

0.094

0.017

34

3

11.6

5.39

3.77

0.29

0.06

4.51

0.56

0.110

0.015

35

3

11.8

5.44

3.94

0.30

0.04

4.64

0.59

0.085

0.013

(Continued)

6.3 K-Means Clustering

125

Table 6.3 (Continued) No

Kiln

Al2 O3

Fe2 O3

MgO

CaO

Na2 O

K2 O

TiO2

MnO

BaO

36

4

18.3

1.28

0.67

0.03

0.03

1.96

0.65

0.001

0.014

37

4

15.8

2.39

0.63

0.01

0.04

1.94

1.29

0.001

0.014

38

4

18.0

1.50

0.67

0.01

0.06

2.11

0.92

0.001

0.016

39

4

18.0

1.88

0.68

0.01

0.04

2.00

1.11

0.006

0.022

41

4

20.8

1.51

0.72

0.07

0.10

2.37

1.26

0.002

0.016

42

5

17.7

1.12

0.56

0.06

0.06

2.06

0.79

0.001

0.013

43

5

18.3

1.14

0.67

0.06

0.05

2.11

0.89

0.006

0.019

44

5

16.7

0.92

0.53

0.01

0.05

1.76

0.91

0.004

0.013

45

5

14.8

2.74

0.67

0.03

0.05

2.15

1.34

0.003

0.015

46

5

19.1

1.64

0.60

0.10

0.03

1.75

1.04

0.007

0.018

with solutions for a range of values of k, the number of groups. As k increases this value will necessarily decrease but some “sharp” change may be indicative of the best solution. To obtain a plot of the within-group sum of squares for the one to six group solutions we can use the following R and S-PLUS code: n<-length(pottery.dat[,1]) #find within group ss for all the data wss1<-(n-1)*sum(apply(pottery.dat,2,var)) wss<-numeric(0) #calculate within group ss for 2 to 6 group partitions given by k-means clustering for(i in 2:6) { W<-sum(kmeans(pottery.dat,i)$withinss) wss<-c(wss,W) } wss<-c(wss1,wss) plot(1:6,wss,type="l",xlab="Number of groups", ylab="Within groups sum of squares",lwd=2)

The resulting diagram is shown in Figure 6.7. The plot suggests looking at the two- or three-cluster solution. Details of the latter can be obtained using pottery.kmean <- kmeans(pottery.dat, 3) pottery.kmean

The output is shown in Table 6.4. The means from the code above are for the standardized data; to get the cluster means for the raw data we can use lapply(1:3,function(nc) apply(pottery.dat[pottery.kmeans$cluster==nc,],2,mean))

126

6. Cluster Analysis

Figure 6.7 Plot of within-cluster sum of squares against number of clusters.

These means are also shown in Table 6.4. The means of each of the nine variables for each of the three clusters show that: • Cluster three is characterized by a high aluminium oxide value and low iron oxide and calcium oxide values. • Cluster two has a very high manganese oxide value and a high potassium oxide value. • Cluster one has high calcium oxide value. In addition to the chemical composition of the pots, the kiln site at which the pottery was found is known for these data (see Table 6.3). An archaeologist might be interested in assessing whether there is any association between the site and the distinct compositional groups found by the cluster analysis. To look at this we can cross-tabulate the kiln site against cluster label as follows: table(kiln,pottery.kmean$cluster)

The resulting cross classiﬁcation is shown in Table 6.5. Cluster 1 contains all 21 pots from kiln number one, cluster 2 contains pots from kilns 2 and 3, and cluster 3 pots from kilns 4 and 5. In fact, the ﬁve kiln sites are from three different regions deﬁned by 1, (2, 3), (4, 5), so the clusters actually correspond to pots from three different regions.

FE2O3 0.86379 0.72184 0.18744

MGO 0.274982 0.713113 0.095522

CAO 0.545958 0.124585 0.022674

NA2O 0.43214 0.28214 0.06375

K2O 0.98817 1.33371 0.64363

MGO 4.777857

FE2O3 6.207857

FE2O3 1.612

[[2]]: AL2O3 12.43571

[[3]]: AL2O3 17.75

MGO 0.64

MGO 1.842381

Means for original data [[1]]: AL2O3 FE2O3 16.91905 7.428571

Cluster sizes: [1] 21 14 10

Within cluster sum of squares: [1] 3.1644 2.8748 1.4667

CAO 0.039

CAO 0.2142857

CAO 0.9390476

NA2O 0.051

NA2O 0.2257143

NA2O 0.3457143

K2O 2.021

K2O 4.187857

K2O 3.102857

Clustering vector: [1] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 [38] 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Means for standardized data Centers: AL2O3 [1,] 1.5812 [2,] 1.1622 [3,] 1.6589

Table 6.4 Details of Three-Group Solution for the Pottery Data

TIO2 1.02

TIO2 0.6828571

TIO2 0.937619

TIO2 1.20208 0.87546 1.30769

MNO 0.0032

MNO 0.1176429

MNO 0.07114286

MNO 0.439153 0.726190 0.019753

BAO 0.016

BAO 0.01592857

BAO 0.01714286

BAO 1.2245 1.1378 1.1429

6.3 K-Means Clustering 127

128

6. Cluster Analysis Table 6.5 Cross-Tabulation of Cluster Label and Kiln 1 2 3 4 5

1

2

3

21 0 0 0 0

0 12 2 0 0

0 0 0 5 5

6.4 Model-Based Clustering The agglomerative hierarchical and k-means clustering methods described in the previous two sections are based largely in heuristic but intuitively reasonable procedures. But they are not based on formal models—those making problems such as deciding on a particular method, estimating the number of clusters, etc., particularly difﬁcult. And, of course, without a reasonable model, formal inference is precluded. In practice, these may not be insurmountable objections to the use of the techniques since cluster analysis is essentially an “exploratory” tool. But modelbased cluster methods do have some advantages, and a variety of possibilities have been proposed. The most successful approach has been that proposed by Scott and Symons (1971) and extended by Banﬁeld and Raftery (1993) and Fraley and Raftery (2002), in which it is assumed that the population from the population from which the observations arise consists of c subpopulations, each corresponding to a cluster, and that the density of a q-dimensional observation from the j th subpopulation is fj (x, θ j ) for some unknown vector of parameters, θ j . They also introduce a vector γ = [γ1 , . . . , γn ], where γi = k if xi is from the kth subpopulation; the γi label the subpopulation of each observation. The clustering problem now becomes that of choosing θ = (θ 1 , θ 2 , . . . , θ c ) and γ to maximize the likelihood function associated with such assumptions. This classiﬁcation maximum likelihood procedure is described brieﬂy in Display 6.1.

Display 6.1 Classiﬁcation Maximum Likelihood • Assume the population consists of c subpopulations, each corresponding to a cluster of observations, and that the density function of a q-dimensional observation from the j th subpopulation is fi (x; θ j ) for some unknown vector of parameters, θj . • Also, assume that γ = [γ1 , . . . , γn ] gives the labels of the subpopulation to which each observation belongs. So γi = j if xi is from the j th population.

6.4 Model-Based Clustering

129

• The clustering problem becomes that of choosing θ = [θ1 , θ2 , . . . , θc ] and γ to maximize the likelihood L(θ, γ) =

n

fγi (xi ; θ γi )

i=1

• If fj (x; θ j ) is taken as a multivariate normal density with mean vector µj and covariance matrix j this likelihood has the form L(θ; γ) = const

c k=1 i∈Ek

−1 1 |k |1/2 exp − (xi − µk ) (xi − µk ) k 2

where Ej = {i : γi = j }. • The maximum likelihood estimator of µj is x¯ j = n−1 j i∈Ej xi where nj is the number of elements in Ej . Replacing µj in (2) with this maximum likelihood estimator yields the following log-likelihood: 1 trace(Wj −1 j + n log | j |) 2 c

l(θ, γ ) = const −

i=1

where Wj is the p × p matrix of sums of squares and cross-products of the variables for subpopulation j . • Banﬁeld and Raftery (1992) demonstrate the following: 1. If k = σ 2 I (k = 1, 2, . . . , c), then the likelihood is maximized by choosing γ to minimize trace (W), where W = ck=1 Wk , that is, minimization of the written group sum of squares. Use of this criterion in a cluster analysis will tend to produce spherical clusters of largely equal sizes. 2. If k = (k = 1, 2, . . . , c), then the likelihood is maximized by choosing γ to minimize |W|, a clustering criterion discussed by Friedman and Rubin (1967) and Mariott (1982). Use of this criterion in a cluster analysis will tend to produce clusters with the same elliptical slope. 3. If k is not constrained, the likelihood is maximized by choosing γ to minimize ck=1 nk log |Wk /nk |. • Banﬁeld and Raftery (1992) also consider criteria that allow the shape of clusters to be less constrained than with the minimization of trace (W) and |W| criteria, but which remain more parsimonious then the completely unconstrained model. For example, constraining clusters to be spherical but not to have the same volume, or constraining clusters to have diagonal covariance matrices but allowing their shapes, sizes, and orientations to vary.

130

6. Cluster Analysis

• The EM algorithm (see Dempster et al., 1977), is used for the maximum likelihood estimation; details are given in Fraley and Raftery (2002). • Model selection is a combination of choosing the appropriate clustering model and the optimal number of clusters. A Bayesian approach is used (see Fraley and Raftery, 2002), using what is known as the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC).

To illustrate this approach to clustering, we shall apply it to the data shown in Table 6.6. These data, taken with permission from Mayor and Frei (2003) give the values of three variables for the exoplanets discovered up to October 2002 (an exoplanet is a planet located outside the solar system). We assume the data are available as the data frame planet.dat. R and S-PLUS functions for model-based clustering are available at http://www.stat.washington.edu/mclust. In R, the package can be installed from CRAN and then loaded in the usual way. Here we use the Mclust function since this selects both the most appropriate model for the data and the optimal number of groups based on the values of the BIC (see Display 6.1) computed over several models and a range of values for number of groups. The necessary code is library(mclust) planet.clus<-Mclust(planet.dat)

We can ﬁrst examine a plot of BIC values using plot(planet.clus,planet.dat)

and selecting the BIC option (option number 1). The resulting diagram is shown in Figure 6.8. In this diagram the numbers refer to different model assumptions about the shape of clusters: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Spherical, equal volume; Spherical, unequal volume; Diagonal equal volume, equal shape; Diagonal varying volume, varying shape; Ellipsoidal, equal volume, shape and orientation; Ellipsoidal, varying volume, shape and orientation.

The BIC selects model 4 and three clusters as the best solution. This solution can be shown graphically on scatterplot matrix of the three variables constructed by using

6.4 Model-Based Clustering Table 6.6 Data on Exoplanets, from Mayor et al. (2003), reprinted by kind permission of Cambridge University Press Mass (in Jupiter mass) 0.12 0.197

Period (in Earth days)

Eccentricity

4.95

0

3.971

0

0.21

44.28

0.34

0.22

75.8

0.28

0.23

6.403

0.08

0.25

3.024

0.02

0.34

2.985

0.08

0.4

10.901

0.498

0.42

3.5097

0

0.47

4.229

0

3.487

0.05

0.48 0.48 0.54 0.56

22.09 3.097 30.12

0.3 0.01 0.27

0.68

4.617

0.02

0.685

3.524

0

0.76

2594

0.1

0.77

14.31

0.27

0.81

828.95

0.04

0.88

221.6

0.54

0.88 0.89 0.9 0.93

2518 64.62 1136 3.092

0.6 0.13 0.33 0

0.93

14.66

0.03

0.99

39.81

0.07

0.99

500.73

0.1

0.99

872.3

0.28

1

337.11

0.38

1

264.9

0.38

1.01 1.01 1.02 1.05

540.4 1942 10.72 119.6

0.52 0.4 0.044 0.35 (Continued)

131

132

6. Cluster Analysis Table 6.6 (Continued) Mass (in Jupiter mass)

Period (in Earth days)

Eccentricity

1.12

500

0.23

1.13

154.8

0.31

1.15

2614

0

1.23

1326

0.14

1.24

391

0.4

1.24

435.6

1.282 1.42 1.55

7.1262 426 51.61

0.45 0.134 0.02 0.649

1.56

1444.5

0.2

1.58

260

0.24

1.63

444.6

0.41

1.64

406.0

0.53

1.65

401.1

0.36

1.68

796.7

0.68

1.76

903

0.2

1.83

454

0.2

1.89 1.9

61.02 6.276

0.1 0.15

1.99

743

0.62

2.05

241.3

0.24

0.05 2.08 2.24 2.54 2.54 2.55

1119 228.52 311.3 1089 627.34

0.17 0.304 0.22 0.06 0.06

2185

0.18

2.63

414

0.21

2.84

250.5

0.19

2.94

229.9

0.35

3.03

186.9

0.41

3.32

267.2

0.23

3.36 3.37 3.44 3.55

1098 133.71 1112 18.2

0.22 0.511 0.52 0.01 (Continued)

6.4 Model-Based Clustering

133

Table 6.6 (Continued) Mass (in Jupiter mass)

Period (in Earth days)

Eccentricity

3.81

340

0.36

3.9

111.81

0.927

4

15.78

0.046

4

5360

0.16

4.12

1209.9

0.65

4.14

3.313

0.02

4.27

1764

4.29

1308.5

0.31

4.5

951

0.45

4.8

1237

0.515

5.18

576

0.71

5.7

383

0.07

6.08

1074

6.292

71.487

7.17

256

7.39

1582

7.42 7.5 7.7

116.7 2300 58.116

0.353

.011 0.1243 0.7 0.478 0.4 0.395 0.529

7.95

1620

0.22

8

1558

0.314

8.64

550.65

0.71

9.7

653.22

0.41

10

3030

0.56

10.37

2115.2

0.62

10.96

84.03

0.33

11.3

2189

0.34

11.98

1209

0.37

14.4 16.9 17.5

8.428 1739.5 256.03

0.277 0.228 0.429

plot(planet.clus,planet.dat)

and selecting the pairs option (option number 2). The plot is shown in Figure 6.9. Mean vectors of the three clusters can be found from planet.clus$mu

134

6. Cluster Analysis

Figure 6.8 Plot of BIC values for a variety of models and a range of number of clusters.

and these are shown in Table 6.7. Cluster 1 consists of the “small” exoplanets (but still, on average, with a mass greater than Jupiter), with very short periods and eccentricities. The second cluster consists of large planets with very long periods and large eccentricities. The third cluster contains planets approximately the same mass as Jupiter, but with moderate periods and eccentricities.

6.5 Summary Cluster analysis techniques provide a rich source of possible stategies for exploring complex multivariate data. They have been used widely in medical investigations; examples include Everitt et al. (1971) and Wastell and Gray (1987). Increasingly, model-based techniques such as ﬁnite mixture densities (see Everitt et al., 2001) and classiﬁcation maximum likelihood, as described in this chapter, are superseding older methods, such as the single linkage, complete linkage, and average linkage methods described in Section 6.2. Two recent references are Fraley and Raftery (1998, 1999).

6.5 Summary

135

Figure 6.9 Scatterplot matrix of planets data showing three cluster solution from Mclust.

Table 6.7 Means for the Three-Group Solution for the Exoplanets Data Cluster 1: n = 19 Cluster 2: n = 41 Cluster 3: n = 15

Mass

Period

Eccentricity

1.16 5.81 1.54

6.45 1263.01 303.82

0.035 0.363 0.308

Exercises 6.1

Show that the intercluster distances used by single linkage, complete linkage, and group average clustering satisfy the following formula: dk(ij ) = αi dki + αj dkj + γ |dki − dkj |,

136

6. Cluster Analysis

where αi = αj , γ = − αi = αj , γ = ai =

1 2

1 2

nj ni , αj = ,γ = 0 ni + n j ni + n j

(single linkage), (complete linkage), (group average).

(dk(ij ) is the distance between a group k and a group (ij) formed by the fusion of groups i and j , and dij is the distance between groups i and j ; ni and nj are the number of observations in groups i and j .) 6.2 Ward (1963) proposed an agglomerative hierarchical clustering procedure in which, at each step, the union of every possible pair of clusters is considered and the two clusters whose fusion results in the minimum increase in an error sum-of-squares criterion, ESS, are combined. For a single2 variable, ESS for a group with n individuals is simply ESS = ni=1 (xi − x) ¯ . (a)

(b) 6.3

If ten individuals with variable values {2, 6, 5, 6, 2, 2, 2, 0, 0, 0} are considered as a single group, calculate ESS. If the individuals are grouped into two groups with individuals 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in one group and individuals 2, 3, 4 in the other, what does ESS become? Can you ﬁt Ward’s method into the general equation given in Exercise 5.1?

Reanalyze the pottery data using Mclust. To what model in Mclust does the k-mean approach approximate? 6.4 Construct a three-dimensional drop-line scatterplot of the planets data in which the points are labelled with a suitable cluster label. 6.5 Reanalyze the life expectancy data by clustering the countries on the basis on differences between the life expectancies of men and women at corresponding ages.

7

Grouped Multivariate Data: Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Discriminant Function Analysis

7.1 Introduction Investigators in many disciplines frequently collect multivariate data on samples from different populations. In Chapter 5, for example, a set of data was introduced in which an archaeologist had made four measurements on Egyptian skulls from ﬁve different epochs. A variety of questions might be asked about such data and, correspondingly, there are a variety of (overlapping) approaches to their analysis. In many examples the prime interest will be in assessing whether the populations involved have different mean vectors on the measurements taken. For this, multivariate analogues of the familiar univariate t-test, Hotelling’s T 2 , or analysis of variance, multivariate analysis of variance, are available. A further question that is often of interest for grouped multivariate data is whether or not it is possible to use the measurements made to construct a classiﬁcation rule derived from the original observations (the training set) that will allow new individuals having the same set of measurements, but no group label, to be allocated to a group in such a way that misclassiﬁcations are minimized. The relevant technique is now some form of discriminant function analysis. In the next section we consider both the inference and classiﬁcation questions for the two-group situation, and then in Section 7.3 move on to discuss data sets where there are more than two groups.

7.2 Two Groups: Hotellings T 2 Test and Fisher’s Linear Discriminant Function Analysis 7.2.1 Hotellings T 2 Test The data shown in Table 7.1 were originally collected by Colonel L.A. Waddell in southeastern and eastern Tibet. According to Morant (1923), the data consist of two groups of skulls: group one (type I), skulls 1–17, found in graves in Sikkim and neighboring areas of Tibet; group two (type II) consisting of the remaining 15 skulls picked up on battleﬁeld in the Lhasa district and believed to be those of native 137

138

7. Grouped Multivariate Data Table 7.1 Tibetan Skull Data (all measurements in mm). From Morant, G.M., A First Study of the Tibetan Skull, in Biometrika, Vol. 14, 1923, pp 193–260, by permission of the Biometrika Trustees Obs

Length

Breadth

Height

Fheight

Fbreadth

Type

1

190.5

152.5

145.0

73.5

136.5

1

2

172.5

132.0

125.5

63.0

121.0

1

3

167.0

130.0

125.5

69.5

119.5

1

4

169.5

150.5

133.5

64.5

128.0

1

5

175.0

138.5

126.0

77.5

135.5

1

6

177.5

142.5

142.5

71.5

131.0

1

7

179.5

142.5

127.5

70.5

134.5

1

8

179.5

138.0

133.5

73.5

132.5

1

9

173.5

135.5

130.5

70.0

133.5

1

10

162.5

139.0

131.0

62.0

126.0

1

11

178.5

135.0

136.0

71.0

124.0

1

12

171.5

148.5

132.5

65.0

146.5

1

13

180.5

139.0

132.0

74.5

134.5

1

14

183.0

149.0

121.5

76.5

142.0

1

15

169.5

130.0

131.0

68.0

119.0

1

16

172.0

140.0

136.0

70.5

133.5

1

17

170.0

126.5

134.5

66.0

118.5

1

18

182.5

136.0

138.5

76.0

134.0

2

19

179.5

135.0

128.5

74.0

132.0

2

20

191.0

140.5

140.5

72.5

131.5

2

21

184.5

141.5

134.5

76.5

141.5

2

22

181.0

142.0

132.5

79.0

136.5

2

23

173.5

136.5

126.0

71.5

136.5

2

24

188.5

130.0

143.0

79.5

136.0

2

25

175.0

153.0

130.0

76.0

134.0

2

27

200.0

139.5

143.5

82.5

146.0

2

28

185.0

134.5

140.0

81.5

137.0

2

29

174.5

143.5

132.5

74.0

136.5

2

30

195.5

144.0

138.5

78.5

144.0

2

31

197.0

131.5

135.0

80.5

139.0

2

32

182.5

131.0

135.0

68.5

136.0

2

In dataframe Tibet.

soldiers from the eastern province of Khans. These skulls were of particular interest since it was thought at the time that Tibetans from Khans might be survivors of a particular fundamental human type, unrelated to the Mongolian and Indian types that surrounded them.

7.2 Two Groups

139

On each of the 32 skulls the following ﬁve measurements, all in millimeters, were recorded: x1 : x2 : x3 : x4 : x5 :

greatest length of skull (length), greatest horizontal breadth of skull (breadth), height of skull (height), upper face height (fheight), face breadth, between outermost points of cheek bones (fbreadth).

We assume the data are available as the dataframe Tibet. The ﬁrst task to carry out on these data is to test the hypothesis that the ﬁvedimensional mean vectors of skull measurements are the same in the two populations from which the samples arise. For this we will use the multivariate analogue of Student’s independent samples t-test, known as Hotelling’s T 2 test, a test described in Display 7.1. Display 7.1 Hotelling’s T 2 Test • If there are q variables, the null hypothesis is that the means of the variables in the ﬁrst population equal the means of the variables in the second population. • If µ1 and µ2 are the mean vectors of the two populations the null hypothesis can be written as H0 : µ1 = µ2 . • The test statistic T 2 is deﬁned as T2 =

n1 n2 D2 , n1 + n 2

where n1 and n2 are the sample sizes in each group and D 2 is the generalized distance introduced in Chapter 1, namely D 2 = (¯x1 − x¯ 2 ) S−1 (¯x1 − x¯ 2 ), where x¯ 1 and x¯ 2 are the two sample mean vectors and S is the estimate of the assumed common covariance matrix of the two populations, calculated from the two sample covariance matrix, S1 and S2 as S=

(n1 − 1)S1 + (n2 − 1)S2 . n1 + n 2 − 2

• Note that the form of the test statistic in the multivariate case is very similar to that for the univariate independent samples t-test, involving a difference between “means” (here mean vectors), and an assumed common “variance” (here a covariance matrix).

140

7. Grouped Multivariate Data

• Under H0 (and when the assumptions given below hold), the statistic F given by (n1 + n2 − q − 1)T 2 F = (n1 + n2 − 2)q has a Fisher’s F -distribution with q and n1 + n2 − q − 1 degrees of freedom. • The T 2 test is based on the following assumptions: 1. In each population the variables have a multivariate normal distribution. 2. The two populations have the same covariance matrix. 3. The observations are independent.

As an exercise we will apply Hotelling’s T 2 test to the skull data using the following R and S-PLUS® code, although we could also use the manova function as we shall see later: attach(Tibet) m1<-apply(Tibet[Type==1,-6],2,mean) m2<-apply(Tibet[Type==2,-6],2,mean) l1<-length(Type[Type==1]) l2<-length(Type[Type==2]) x1<-Tibet[Type==1,-6] x2<-Tibet[Type==2,-6] S123<-((l1-1)*var(x1)+(l2-1)*var(x2))/(l1+l2-2) T2<-t(m1-m2)%*%solve(S123)%*%(m1-m2) Fstat<-(l1+l2-5-1)*T2/(l1+l2-2)*5 pvalue<-1-pf(Fstat,5,26)

Hotelling’s T 2 takes the value 3.50 with the corresponding F statistic being 15.17 with 5 and 26 degrees of freedom. The associated p-value is very small, and we can conclude that there is strong evidence that the mean vectors of the two groups differ. It might be thought that the results of Hotelling’s T 2 test would simply reﬂect those that would be obtained using a series of univariate t-tests, in the sense that if no signiﬁcant differences are found by the separate t-tests, then the T 2 test will inevitably lead to acceptance of the null hypothesis that the population mean vectors are equal. And, on the other hand, if any signiﬁcant difference is found when using the t-tests on the individual variables, then the T 2 statistic must also lead to a signiﬁcant result. But these speculations are not correct (if they were, the T 2 test would be a waste of time). It is entirely possible to ﬁnd no signiﬁcant difference for each separate t-test, but a signiﬁcant result for the T 2 test, and vice versa. An illustration of how this can happen in the case of two variables is shown in Display 7.2.

7.2 Two Groups

141

Display 7.2 Univariate and Multivariate Tests for Equality of Means for Two Variables • Suppose we have a sample of n observations on two variables, x1 and x2 and we wish to test whether the population means of the two variables µ1 and µ2 are both zero. • Assume the mean and standard deviation of the x1 observations are x¯1 and s1 , respectively, and of the x2 observations, x¯2 and s2 . • If we test separately whether each mean takes the value zero, then we would use two t tests. For example, to test µ1 = 0 against µ1 = 0 the appropriate test statistic is x¯1 − 0 t= √ . s1 n • The hypothesis µ1 = 0 would be rejected at the α percent level of signiﬁcance ! or t > t ! ; that is, if x¯ fell outside the interval if t < −t 1 100 1− 21 α 100 1− 21 α " #√ $ % & ! ! is the 100 1 − 1 α percent point of −s1 t n where t 1 1 2 100 1− 2 α

100 1− 2 α

the t distribution with n − 1 degrees of freedom. Thus the hypothesis would not be rejected if x¯1 fell within this interval. • Similarly, the hypothesis µ2 = 0 for the variable x2 would not be rejected if the mean, x¯2 , of the x2 observations fell within a corresponding interval with s2 substituted for s1 . • The multivariate hypothesis [µ1 , µ2 ] = [0, 0] would therefore not be rejected if both these conditions were satisﬁed. • If we were to plot the point (x¯1 , x¯2 ) against rectangular axes, the area within which the point could like and the multivariate hypothesis not rejected is given by the rectangle are of length √ ABCD of the diagram below, where AB and DC! √ ! n while AD and BC are of length 2s t 2s1 t n. 2 1 1 100 1− 2 α

100 1− 2 α

142

7. Grouped Multivariate Data

• Thus, a sample that gave the means (x¯1 , x¯2 ) represented by the point P would lead to acceptance of the multivariate hypothesis. • Suppose, however, that the variables x1 and x2 are moderately highly correlated. Then all points (x1 , x2 ) and hence (x¯1 , x¯2 ) should lie reasonably close to the straight line MN through the origin marked on the diagram. • Hence samples consistent with the multivariate hypothesis should be represented by points (x¯1 , x¯2 ) that lie within a region encompassing the line MN. When we take account of the nature of the variation of bivariate normal samples that include correlation, this region can be shown to be an ellipse such as that marked on the diagram. The point P is not consistent with this region and, in fact, should be rejected for this sample. • Thus, the inference drawn from the two separate univariate tests conﬂicts with the one drawn from a single multivariate test, and it is the wrong inference. • A sample giving the (x¯1 , x¯2 ) values represented by point Q would give the other type of mistake, where the application of two separate univariate tests leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis, but the correct multivariate inference is that the hypothesis should not be rejected. (This explanation is taken with permission from Krzanowski, 1988.) Having produced evidence that the mean vectors of skull types I and II are not the same, we can move on to the classiﬁcation aspect of grouped multivariate data.

7.2.2 Fisher’s Linear Discriminant Function Suppose a further skull is uncovered whose origin is unknown, that is, we do not know if it is type I or type II. How might we use the original data to construct a classiﬁcation rule that will allow the new skull to be classiﬁed as type I or II based on the same ﬁve measurements taken on the skulls in Table 7.1? The answer was provided by Fisher (1936) who approached the problem by seeking a linear function of the observed variables that provides maximal separation, in a particular sense, between the two groups. Details of Fisher’s linear discriminant function are given in Display 7.3. Display 7.3 Fisher’s Linear Discriminant Function • The aim is to ﬁnd a way of classifying observations into one of two known groups using a set of variables, x1 , x2 , . . . , xq : • Fisher’s idea was to ﬁnd a linear function z of the variables. x1 , x2 , . . . , xq ; z = a1 x1 + a2 x2 + · · · + aq xq , such that the ratio of the between-group variance of z to its within-group variance is maximized.

7.2 Two Groups

143

• The coefﬁcients a = [a1 , . . . , aq ] have therefore to be chosen so that V , given by a Ba V = , a Sa is maximized, where S is the pooled within-group covariance matrix, and B is the covariance matrix of group means; explicitly, i 1

(xij − x¯ j )(xij − x¯ j ) , n−2

2

S=

n

i=1 j =1

B=

2

ni (¯xi − x¯ )(¯xi − x¯ ) ,

i=1 = [x , x , . . . , x ] represents the set of q variable values for where xij ij 1 ij 2 ij q the j th individual in group i, x¯ j is the mean vector of the j th group, and x¯ is the mean vector of all observations. The number of observations in each group is n1 and n2 , with n = n1 + n2 . • The vector a that maximizes V is given by the solution of

(B − λS)a = 0. • In the two-group situation, the single solution can be shown to be a = S−1 (¯x1 − x¯ 2 ). • The allocation rule is now to allocate an individual with discriminate score z to group 1 if z > (¯z1 + z¯ 2 )/2, where z¯ 1 and z¯ 2 are the mean discriminant scores in each group. (We are assuming that the groups are labelled such that z¯ 1 > z¯ 2 .) • Fisher’s discriminant function also arises from assuming that the observations in group one have a multivariate normal distribution with mean vector µ1 and covariance matrix and those in group two have a multivariate distribution with mean vector µ2 and, again, covariance matrix , and assuming that an individual with vector of scores x is allocated to group one if MVN(x, µ1 , ) > MVN(x, µ2 , ), where MVN is shorthand for the multivariate normal density function. • Substituting sample values for population rules leads to the same allocation rule as that given above. • The above is only valid if the prior probabilities of being in each group are assumed to be the same. • When the prior probabilities are not equal the classiﬁcation rule changes; for details, see Everitt and Dunn (2001).

144

7. Grouped Multivariate Data

The description given in Display 7.3 can be translated into R and S-PLUS code as follows: m1<-apply(Tibet[Type==1,-6],2,mean) m2<-apply(Tibet[Type==2,-6],2,mean) l1<-length(Type[Type==1]) l2<-length(Type[Type==2]) x1<-Tibet[Type==1,-6] x2<-Tibet[Type==2,-6] S123<-((l1-1)*var(x1)+(l2-1)*var(x2))/(l1+l2-2) a<-solve(S123)%*%(m1-m2) z12<-(m1%*%a+m2%*%a)/2

This leads to the vector of discriminant function coefﬁcients (a in Display 7.3) being a = [−0.0893, 0.156, 0.005, −0.177, −0.177] and the threshold value being −30.363. The resulting classiﬁcation rule becomes: classify to type I if −0.0893 × length + 0.15 × Breadth + 0.005 × fheight −0.177 × fbreadth > −30.363 and Type II otherwise. The same results can be obtained using the discrim function in S-PLUS: dis<-discrim(Type∼Length+Breadth+Height+Fheight+Fbreadth, data=Tibet, family=Classical("homoscedastic"),prior="uniform") dis

This gives the results shown in Table 7.2. The results given previously are found from Table 7.2 by simply subtracting the two sets of linear coefﬁcients to give the vector of discriminant function coefﬁcients and the two constants to give the threshold value: const<-coef(dis)$constants const[2]-const[1] coefs<-coef(dis)$linear.coefficients coefs[,1]-coefs[,2]

By loading the MASS library in both R and S-PLUS, Fisher’s linear discriminant analysis can be applied using the lda function as library(MASS) dis<-lda(Type∼Length+Breadth+Height+Fheight+Fbreadth, data=Tibet,prior=c(0.5,0.5))

Suppose now we have the following observations on two new skulls: Skull 1: Skull 2:

Length

Breadth

Height

Fheight

Fbreadth

171.0 179.0

140.5 132.0

127.0 140.0

69.5 72.0

137.0 138.5

7.2 Two Groups

145

Table 7.2 Results from discrim on Tibetan Skull Data Group means: Length 1 174.82 2 185.73

Breadth 139.35 138.73

Height 132.00 134.77

Covariance Structure: homoscedastic Length Breadth Length 59.013 9.008 Breadth 48.261 Height Fheight Fbreadth Constants: 1 −514.9

Fheight 69.824 76.467

Height 17.219 1.077 36.198

Fbreadth 130.35 137.50

Fheight 20.120 4.339 4.838 18.307

N 17 15

Priors 0.5 0.5

Fbreadth 20.110 30.046 4.108 12.985 43.696

2 −545.48

Linear Coefficients: X1 Length 1.4683 Breadth 2.3611 Height 2.7522 Fheight 0.7753 Fbreadth 0.1948

X2 1.5576 2.2053 2.7470 0.9525 0.3722

and wish to classify them to be type I or type II. We can calculate each skull’s discriminant score as follows; Skull 1: −0.0893 × 171.0 + 0.156 × 140.5 + 0.005 × 127.0 − 0.177 × 69.5 − 0.177 × 137.0 = −29.27 Skull 2: −0.893 × 179.0 + 0.156 × 132.0 + 0.005 × 140.0 − 0.177 × 72.0 − 0.177 × 138.5 = −31.95 Comparing each score to the threshold value of −30.363 leads to classifying skull 1 as type I and skull 2 as type II. We can use the predict function applied to the object dis to do the same thing: newdata<-rbind(c(171,140.5,127.0,69.5,137.0),c(179.0,132.0, 140.0,72.0,138.5)) dimnames(newdata)<-list(NULL,c("Length","Breadth","Height", "Fheight","Fbreadth")) newdata<-data.frame(newdata) predict(dis,newdata=newdata)

to give the following classiﬁcation probabilities: Prob(Type I): Prob(Type II):

Skull 1

Skull 2

0.77695 0.19284

0.22305 0.80716

Fisher’s linear discriminant function is optimal when the data arise from populations having multivariate normal distributions with the same covariance matrices.

146

7. Grouped Multivariate Data

When the distributions are clearly non-normal an alternative approach is logistic discrimination (see, e.g., Anderson, 1972), although the results of both this and Fisher’s method are likely to be very similar in most cases. When the two covariance matrices are thought to be unequal, then the linear discriminant function is no longer optimal and a quadratic version may be needed. Details are given in Everitt and Dunn (2001). The quadratic discriminant function has the advantage of increased ﬂexibility compared to the linear version. There is, however, a penalty involved in the form of potential overﬁtting, making the derived function poor at classifying new observations. Friedman (1989) attempts to ﬁnd a compromise between the data variability of quadratic discrimination and the possible bias of linear discrimination by adopting a weighted sum of the two called regularized discriminant analysis.

7.2.3 Assessing the Performance of a Discriminant Function How might we evaluate the performance of a discriminant function? One obvious approach would be to apply the function to the data from which it was derived and calculate the misclassiﬁcation rate (this approach is known as the “plug-in” estimate). We can do this for the Tibetan skull data in R and S-PLUS by again using the predict function as follows: group<-predict(dis,method="plug-in")$class #in S-PLUS use predict(dis,method="plug-in")$group table(group,Type)

leading to the following counts of correct and incorrect classiﬁcations: Correct group Allocated 1 2

1 14 3

2 3 12

The misclassiﬁcation rate is 19%. This technique has the advantage of being extremely simple. Unfortunately, however, it generally provides a very poor estimate of the actual misclassiﬁcation rate. In most cases the estimate obtained in this way will be highly optimistic. An improved estimate of the misclassiﬁcation rate of a discriminant function may be obtained in a variety of ways (see Hand, 1998, for details). The most commonly used of the alternatives available is the so-called “leaving-one-out method,” in which the discriminant function is derived from just n − 1 members of the sample and then used to classify the member not included. The process is carried out n times, leaving out each sample member in turn. We will illustrate the use of this approach later in the chapter.

7.3 More Than Two Groups

147

7.3 More Than Two Groups: Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and Classiﬁcation Functions 7.3.1 Multivariate Analysis of Variance MANOVA is an extension of univariate analysis of variance procedures to multidimensional observations. Details of the technique for a one-way design are given in Display 7.3. Display 7.3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance • We assume we have multivariate observations for a number of individuals from m different populations where m 2 and there are ni observations from population i. • The linear model for observation xij k , the j th observation on variable k in group i, k = 1, . . . , q, j = 1, . . . , ni , i = 1, . . . , m is xij k = µk + αik + εij k , where µk is a general effect for the kth variable, αik is the effect of group i on the kth variable, and εij k is a random disturbance term. • The vector εij = [εij 1 , . . . , εij q ] is assumed to have a multivariate normal distribution with null mean vector and covariance matrix, , assumed to be the same in all m populations. The εij of different individuals are assumed to be independent of one another. • The hypothesis of equal mean vectors in the m populations can be written as H0 : αik = 0,

i = 1, . . . , m, k = 1, . . . , q.

The multivariate analysis of variance is based on two matrices, H and E, the elements of which are deﬁned as follows: hrs =

k

ni (x¯ir − x¯r )(x¯is − x¯s ),

r, s = 1, . . . , q,

i=1

ers =

ni k

(x¯ij r − x¯ir )(x¯ij s − x¯is ),

r, s = 1, . . . , q,

i=1 j =1

where x¯ir is the mean of variable r in group i, and x¯r is the grand mean of variable r. • The diagonal elements of H and E are, respectively, the between-groups sum of squares for each variable, and the within-group sum of squares for the variable.

148

7. Grouped Multivariate Data

• The off-diagonal elements of H and E are the corresponding sums of crossproducts for pairs of variables. • In the multivariate situation when m > 2 there is no single test statistic that is always the most powerful for detecting all types of departures from the null hypothesis of the mean vectors of the populations. • A number of different test statistics have been proposed that may lead to different conclusions when used in the same data set, although on most occasions they will not. • The following are the principal test statistics for the multivariate analysis of variance (a) Wilks’ determinantal ratio

=

|E| |H + E|

(b) Roy’s greatest root Here the criterion is the largest eigenvalue of E−1 H (c) Lawley–Hotelling trace t = trace(E−1 H). (d) Pillai trace ν = trace[H(H + E)−1 ]. • Each test statistic can be converted into an approximate F -statistic that allows associated p-values to be calculated. For details see Tabachnick and Fidell (2000). • When there are only two groups all four test criteria above are equivalent and lead to the same F value as Hotelling’s T2 as given in Display 7.1.

We will illustrate the application of MANOVA using the data on skull measurements in different epochs met in Chapter 5 (see Table 5.8). We can apply a one-way MANOVA to these data and get values for each of the four test statistics described in Display 7.3 using the following R and S-PLUS code: R attach(skulls) skulls.manova < −manova(cbind(MB, BH, BL, NH)∼EPOCH) summary(skulls.manova, test = "Pillai") summary(skulls.manova, test = "Wilks") summary(skulls.manova, test = "Hotelling") summary(skulls.manova, test = "Roy")

7.3 More Than Two Groups

149

S-PLUS attach(skulls) skulls.manova < −manova(cbind(MB, BH, BL, NH)∼EPOCH) summary(skulls.manova, test = "pillai") summary(skulls.manova, test = "wilks") summary(skulls.manova, test = "hotelling − lawley") summary(skulls.manova, test = "roylargest") The results are shown in Table 7.3. There is very strong evidence that the mean vectors of the ﬁve epochs differ. The tests applied in MANOVA assume multivariate normality for the error terms in the corresponding model (see Display 7.3). An informal assessment of this assumption can be made using the chi-square plot described in Chapter 1 applied to the residuals from ﬁtting the one-way MANOVA model; note that the residuals in this case are each four-dimensional vectors. The required R and S-PLUS instruction is chisplot(residuals(skulls.manova))

This gives the diagram shown in Figure 7.1. There is no evidence of a departure from multivariate normality.

7.3.2 Classiﬁcation Functions and Canonical Variates When there is an interest in classiﬁcation of multivariate observations where there are more than two groups, a series of classiﬁcation functions can be derived based on the two-group approach described in Section 7.2. Details are given in Display 7.4 for the three group situation.

Table 7.3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Results for Egyptian Skull Data Df Pillai Trace approx. F num df den df P-value EPOCH 4 0.35 3.51 16 580 Residuals 145 Df Wilks Lambda approx. F num df den df P-value EPOCH 4 0.66 3.9 16 434.45 Residuals 145 Df Hotelling-Lawley approx. F num df den df P-value EPOCH 4 0.48 4.23 16 562 Residuals 145 Df Roy Largest approx. F num df den df P-value EPOCH 4 0.43 15.41 4 145 Residuals 145

0

0

0

0

150

7. Grouped Multivariate Data

Figure 7.1 Chi-square plot of residuals from ﬁtting one-way MANOVA model to Egyptian skull data.

Display 7.4 Classiﬁcation Functions for Three Groups • When more than two groups are involved, the rule for allocating to two multivariate normal distributions with the same covariance matrix can be applied to each pair of groups in turn to derive a series of classiﬁcation functions. • For three groups, for example, the sample versions of the functions would be: $ " 1 h12 (x) = (¯x1 − x¯ 2 ) S−1 x − (¯x1 + x¯ 2 ) , 2 $ " 1 h13 (x) = (¯x1 − x¯ 3 ) S−1 x − (¯x1 + x¯ 3 ) , 2 $ " 1 h23 (x) = (¯x2 − x¯ 3 ) S−1 x − (¯x2 + x¯ 3 ) , 2 where S is the pooled within-groups covariance matrix calculated over all three groups.

7.3 More Than Two Groups

151

• The classiﬁcation rule now becomes: Allocate to G1 if h12 (x) > 0 and h13 (x) > 0; Allocate to G2 if h12 (x) < 0 and h23 (x) > 0; Allocate to G3 if h13 (x) < 0 and h23 (x) < 0.

The classiﬁcation functions allow observations to be classiﬁed optimally, but interest may also lie in identifying the dimensions of the multivariate space of the observed variables that are of most importance in distinguishing between the groups. For two groups the single dimension is given by Fisher’s linear discriminant function, which, as described in Display 7.3, arises as the single solution of the equation (B − λS)a = 0. When there are more than two groups however, this equation will have more then one solution, reﬂecting the fact that more than one direction is needed to describe the differences between the mean vectors of the groups. With g groups and q variables there will be min(q, g − 1) solutions. These best separating dimensions are known as canonical variates. We can ﬁnd them and the relevant classiﬁcation for the Egyptian skull data by again using the discrim function (or alternatively the lda function although the options and output are not quite so comprehensive): dis<-discrim(EPOCH∼MB+BH+BL+NH,data=skulls,family=Canonical ("homoscedastic")) dis summary(dis)

An edited version of the results is shown in Table 7.4. To form the classiﬁcation functions described in Display 7.4 we need to look at the “linear coefﬁcients” and the “constants” in this table. For example, the classiﬁcation function for epochs, c4000BC, and c3300BC, can be found as const <- coef(dis)$constants t12<-const[2] - const[1] coefs <- coef(dis)$linear.coefficients h12<-coefs[, 1] - coefs[, 2]

This gives the necessary vector of constants and threshold to form the ﬁrst of the required classiﬁcation functions; similarly, the remaining classiﬁcation functions, h13,h14,. . .,h45, and thresholds, t12,t13,. . .,t45, can be found. They may then be applied to the four measurements on a new skull as indicated by the rule in Display 7.4 extended in an obvious way to the ﬁve-group situation, to classify the skull into one of the ﬁve epochs (see Exercise 7.4).

152

7. Grouped Multivariate Data

Table 7.4 Edited Results from Applying the discrim Function to the Egyptian Skull Data Group means: c4000BC c3300BC c1850BC c200BC cAD150

MB 131.37 132.37 134.47 135.50 136.17

BH 133.60 132.70 133.80 132.30 130.33

BL 99.167 99.067 96.033 94.533 93.500

NH 50.533 50.233 50.567 51.967 51.367

N 30 30 30 30 30

Priors 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Covariance Structure: homoscedastic MB BH BL NH MB 21.111 0.037 0.079 2.009 BH 23.485 5.200 2.845 BL 24.179 1.133 NH 10.153 Canonical Coefficients: dim1 dim2 MB 0.126676 0.038738 BH −0.037032 0.210098 BL −0.145125 −0.068114 NH 0.082851 −0.077293 Singular Values: dim1 dim2 dim3 3.9255 1.189 0.75451 Constants: c4000BC c3300BC −914.53 −915.35

dim3 −0.092768 0.024568 −0.014749 0.294589

dim4 0.27062

c1850BC −925.34

Linear Coefficients: c4000BC c3300BC MB 6.0012 6.0515 BH 4.7674 4.7316 BL 2.9569 2.9617 NH 2.1238 2.0938

dim4 −0.14883986 0.00042008 −0.13250077 −0.06685888

c200BC −923.42

c1850BC 6.1507 4.8090 2.8189 2.1013

cAD150 −914.12

c200BC 6.1850 4.7380 2.7647 2.2583

Plug-in classification table: c4000BC c3300BC c1850BC c4000BC 12 8 4 c3300BC 10 8 5 c1850BC 4 4 15 c200BC 3 3 7 cAD150 2 4 4 Overall (from=rows,to=columns)

cAD150 6.2209 4.6650 2.7395 2.2154

c200BC 4 4 2 5 9

cAD150 2 3 5 12 11

Error 0.60000 0.73333 0.50000 0.83333 0.63333 0.66000

c200BC 4 4 2 5 10

cAD150 2 3 6 12 10

Error 0.70000 0.76667 0.60000 0.83333 0.66667 0.71333

Posterior.Error 0.60390 0.68144 0.62486 0.73753 0.51736 0.63302

Rule Mean Square Error: 0.71928 (conditioned on the training data) Cross-validation table: c4000BC c3300BC c4000BC 9 10 c3300BC 11 7 c1850BC 6 4 c200BC 3 3 cAD150 2 4 Overall (from=rows,to=columns)

c1850BC 5 5 12 7 4

Posterior.Error 0.61844 0.65822 0.64549 0.72218 0.52258 0.63338

7.3 More Than Two Groups

153

The coefﬁcients deﬁning the canonical variates are to found under “canonical coefﬁcients” in Table 7.4. Here, with ﬁve groups and four variables, there are four such variates. To see how the canonical variates discriminate between the groups, it is often useful to plot the group canonical variate means. For example, we can plot the means for the ﬁrst two canonical variates as dsfs1<-c(0.13,-0.04,-0.15,0.08)%*%t(skulls[,-1]) dsfs2<-c(0.04,0.21,-0.068,-0.08)%*%t(skulls[,-1]) m1
The result is shown in Figure 7.2. The ﬁrst canonical variate separates the two earliest epochs from the other three and the second separates c1850BC from the remaining four. The “plug-in” estimate of the misclassiﬁcation rate is shown in Table 7.4. Also shown is the more realistic “leave-out-one” or “cross-validation” estimate. There is a considerable amount of misclassiﬁcation particularly for c200BC and cAD150.

Figure 7.2 Epoch means for the ﬁrst two canonical variates.

154

7. Grouped Multivariate Data Table 7.5 SIDS data Group

HR

BW

Factor68

Gesage

1

115.6

3060

0.291

39

1

108.2

3570

0.277

40

1

114.2

3950

0.390

41

1

118.8

3480

0.339

40

1

76.9

3370

0.248

39

1

132.6

3260

0.342

40

1

107.7

4420

0.310

42

1

118.2

3560

0.220

40

1

126.6

3290

0.233

38

1

138.0

3010

0.309

40

1

127.0

3180

0.355

40

1

127.7

3950

0.309

40

1

106.8

3400

0.250

40

1

142.1

2410

0.368

38

1

91.5

2890

0.223

42

1

151.1

4030

0.364

40

1

127.1

3770

0.335

42

1

134.3

2680

0.356

40

1

114.9

3370

0.374

41

1

118.1

3370

0.152

40

1

122.0

3270

0.356

40

1

167.0

3520

0.394

41

1

107.9

3340

0.250

41

1

134.6

3940

0.422

41

1

137.7

3350

0.409

40

1

112.8

3350

0.241

39

1

131.3

3000

0.312

40

1

132.7

3960

0.196

40

1

148.1

3490

0.266

40

1

118.9

2640

0.310

39

1

133.7

3630

0.351

40

1

141.0

2680

0.420

38

1

134.1

3580

0.366

40

1

135.5

3800

0.503

39

1

148.6

3350

0.272

40

1

147.9

3030

0.291

40 (Continued)

7.4 Summary

155

Table 7.6 (Continued) Group

HR

BW

Factor68

Gesage

1

162.0

3940

0.308

42

1

146.8

4080

0.235

40

1

131.7

3520

0.287

40

1

149.0

3630

0.456

40

1

114.1

3290

0.284

40

1

129.2

3180

0.239

40

1

144.2

3580

0.191

40

1

148.1

3060

0.334

40

1

108.2

3000

0.321

37

1

131.1

4310

0.450

40

1

129.7

3975

0.244

40

1

142.0

3000

0.173

40

1

145.5

3940

0.304

41

2

139.7

3740

0.409

40

2

121.3

3005

0.626

38

2

131.4

4790

0.383

40

2

152.8

1890

0.432

38

2

125.6

2920

0.347

40

2

139.5

2810

0.493

39

2

117.2

3490

0.521

38

2

131.5

3030

0.343

37

2

137.3

2000

0.359

41

2

140.9

3770

0.349

40

2

139.5

2350

0.279

40

2

128.4

2780

0.409

39

2

154.2

2980

0.388

40

2

140.7

2120

0.372

38

2

105.5

2700

0.314

39

2

121.7

3060

0.405

41

7.4 Summary Grouped multivariate data occur frequently in practice. The appropriate method of analysis depends on the question of most interest to the investigator. Hotelling’s T 2 and MANOVA are used to assess formal hypothesis about population mean vectors. Where there is evidence of a difference then the construction of a classiﬁcation rule

156

7. Grouped Multivariate Data

is often (but not always) of interest. A range of other discriminant procedures are available in the MASS library, and readers are encouraged to investigate.

Exercises 7.1

In a two-group discriminant situation, if members of one group have a y-value of −1 and those of the other group a value of 1, show that the coefﬁcients in a regression of y on x1 , x2 , . . . , xq are proportional to S−1 (¯x1 − x¯ 2 ), the coefﬁcients of Fisher’s linear discriminant function. 7.2 In the two-group discrimination problem, suppose that n x fi (x) = pi (1 − pi )n−x , 0 < pi < 1, i = 1, 2, x where p1 and p2 are known. If π1 and π2 are the prior probabilities of the two groups, devise the classiﬁcation rule using the approach described in Display 7.3. 7.3 The data shown in Table 7.5 were collected by Spicer et al. (1987) in an investigation of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The two groups here consist of 16 SIDS victims and 49 controls. The Factor68 variable arises from spectral analysis of 24 hour recordings of electrocardiograms and respiratory movements made on each child. All the infants have a gestational age of 37 weeks or more and were regarded as full term. (i)

Construct Fisher’s linear discriminant function using only the Factor68 and Birthweight variables. Show the derived discriminant function on a scatterplot of the data. (ii) Construct the discriminant function based on all four variables and ﬁnd an appropriate estimate of the misclassiﬁcation rate. (iii) How would you incorporate prior probabilities into your discriminant function? 7.4

Find all the classiﬁcation functions for the Egyptian skull data and use them to allocate a new skull with the following measurements: MB: 133.0 BH: 130.0 BL: 95.0 NH: 50.0

8

Multiple Regression and Canonical Correlation

8.1 Introduction In this chapter we discuss two related but separate techniques, multiple regression and canonical correlation. The ﬁrst of these is not strictly a multivariate procedure; the reasons for including it in this book are that it provides some useful basic material both for the discussion of canonical correlation in this chapter and modelling longitudinal data in Chapter 9.

8.2 Multiple Regression Multiple linear regression represents a generalization, to more than a single explanatory variable, of the simple linear regression model met in all introductory statistics courses. The method is used to investigate the relationship between a dependent variable, y, and a number of explanatory variables x1 , x2 , . . . , xq . Details of the model, including the estimation of its parameters by least squares and the calculation of standard errors are given in Display 8.1. Note in particular that the explanatory variables are, strictly, not regarded as random variables at all so that multiple regression is essentially a univariate technique with the only random variable involved being the response, y. Often the technique is referred to as being multivariable to properly distinguish it from genuinely multivariate procedures. As an example of the application of multiple regression we can apply it to the air pollution data introduced in Chapter 3 (see Table 3.1), with SO2 level as the dependent variable and the remaining variables being explanatory. The model can be applied in R and S-PLUS® and the results summarized using attach(usair.dat) usair.fit<-lm(SO2∼Neg.Temp + Manuf + Pop + Wind + Precip + Days) summary(usair.fit) 157

158

8. Multiple Regression and Canonical Correlation

Display 8.1 Multiple Regression Model • The multiple linear regression model for a response variable y with observed values y1 , y2 , . . . , yn and q explanatory variables, x1 , x2 , . . . , xq , with observed values xi1 , xi2 , . . . , xiq for i = 1, 2, . . . , n, is yi = β0 + β1 xi1 + β2 xi2 + · · · + βq xiq + εi . • The regression coefﬁcients β1 , β2 , . . . , βq give the amount of change in the response variable associated with a unit change in the corresponding explanatory variable, conditional on the other explanatory variables in the model remaining unchanged. • The explanatory variables are strictly assumed to be ﬁxed; that is, they are not random variables. In practice, where this is rarely the case, the results from a multiple regression analysis are interpreted as being conditional on the observed values of the explanatory variables. • The residual terms in the model, εi , i = 1, . . . , n, are assumed to have a normal distribution with mean zero and variance σ 2 . This implies that, for given values of the explanatory variables, the response variable is normally distributed with a mean that is a linear function of the explanatory variables and a variance that is not dependent on these variables. Consequently an equivalent way of writing the multiple regression model is as y ∼ N(µ, σ 2 ) where µ = β0 + β1 x1 + · · · + βq xq . • The “linear” in multiple linear regression refers to the parameters rather than the explanatory variables, so the model remains linear if, for example, a quadratic term for one of these variables is included. (An example of a nonlinear model is y = β1 eβ2 xi1 + β3 eβ4 xi2 + εi .) • The aim of multiple regression is to arrive at a set of values for the regression coefﬁcients that makes the values of the response variable predicted from the model as close as possible to the observed values. • The least-squares procedure is used to estimate the parameters in the multiple regression model. • The resulting estimators are most conveniently written with the help of some matrices and vectors. By introducing a vector y = [y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ] and an n × (q + 1) matrix X given by ⎛ ⎞ 1 x11 x12 . . . x1q ⎜1 x21 x22 . . . x2q ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ X = ⎜. .. ⎟ , .. .. .. . ⎝. . ⎠ . . . 1 xn1 xn2 . . . xnq we can write the multiple regression model for the n observations concisely as y = Xβ + ε, where ε = [ε1 , ε2 , . . . , εn ] and β = [β0 , β1 , . . . , βq ].

8.2 Multiple Regression

159

• The least-squares estimators of the parameters in the multiple regression model are given by the set of equations βˆ = (X X)−1 X y. • More details of the least-squares estimation process are given in Rawlings et al. (1998). • The variation in the response variable can be partitioned into a part due to regression on the explanatory variables and a residual as for simple linear regression. The can be arranged in an analysis of variance table as follows: Source Regression Residual

DF

SS

MS

F

q n−q −1

RGSS RSS

RGSS/q RSS/n − q − 1

RGMS/RSMS

• The residual mean square s 2 is an estimator of σ 2 . • The covariance matrix of the parameter estimates in the multiple regression model is estimated from Sβˆ = s 2 (X X)−1 . The diagonal elements of this matrix give the variances of the estimated regression coefﬁcients and the off-diagonal elements their covariances. • A measure of the ﬁt of the model is provided by the multiple correlation coefﬁcient, R, deﬁned as the correlation between the observed values of the response variable, y1 , K, yn , and the values predicted by the ﬁtted model, that is, yˆi = βˆ0 + βˆ1 xi1 + · · · + βˆq xiq • The value of R 2 gives the proportion of variability in the response variable accounted for by the explanatory variables.

The results are shown in Table 8.1. The F statistic for testing the hypothesis that all six regression coefﬁcients in the model are zero is 11.48 with 6 and 34 degrees of freedom. The associated p-value is very small and the hypothesis should clearly be rejected. The t-statistics suggest that Manuf and Pop are the most important predictors of sulphur dioxide level. The square of the multiple correlation coefﬁcient is 0.67 showing that 67% of the variation in SO2 level is accounted for by the six explanatory variables. When applying multiple regression in practice, of course, analysis would continue to try to identify a more parsimonious model, followed by examination of residuals from the ﬁnal model to check assumptions. We shall not do this since

160

8. Multiple Regression and Canonical Correlation

Table 8.1 Results of Multiple Regression Applied to Air Pollution Data Covariate (Intercept) Neg. temp Manuf Pop Wind Precip Days

Estimated regression coefﬁcient 111.7285 1.2679 0.0649 −0.0393 −3.1814 0.5124 −0.0521

Standard error 47.3181 0.6212 0.0159 0.0151 1.8150 0.3628 0.1620

t-value 2.3612 2.0412 4.1222 −2.5955 −1.7528 1.4124 −0.3213

p 0.0241 0.0491 0.0002 0.0138 0.0887 0.1669 0.7500

Residual standard error: 14.64 on 34 degrees of freedom. Multiple R-squared: 0.6695. F -statistic: 11.48 on 6 and 34 degrees of freedom, the p-value is 5.419e − 007.

here we are largely interested in the univariate multiple regression model merely as a convenient stepping stone to discuss a number of multivariate procedures beginning with canonical correlation analysis.

8.3 Canonical Correlations Multiple regression is concerned with the relationship between a single variable y and a set of variables x1 , x2 , . . . , xq . Canonical correlation analysis extends this idea to investigating the relationship between two sets of variables, each containing more than a single member. For example, in psychology an investigator may measure a set of aptitude variables and a set of achievement variables on a sample of students. In marketing, a similar example might involve a set of price indices and a set of prediction indices. The objective of canonical correlation analysis is to ﬁnd linear functions of one set of variables that maximally correlate with linear functions of the other set of variables. In many circumstances one set will contain multiple dependent variables and the other multiple independent or explanatory variables and then canonical correlation analysis might be seen as a way of predicting multiple dependent variables from multiple independent variables. Extraction of the coefﬁcients that deﬁne the required linear functions has similarities to the process of ﬁnding principal components as described in Chapter 3. Some of the steps are described in Display 8.2. To begin we shall illustrate the application of canonical correlation analysis on a data set reported over 80 years ago by Frets (1921). The data are given in Table 8.2 and give head measurements (in millimeters) for each of the ﬁrst two adult sons in 25 families. Here the family is the “individual” in our data set and the four head measurements are the variables. The question that was of interest to Frets was whether there is a relationship between the head measurements for pairs of sons? We shall address this question by using canonical correlation analysis. Here we shall develop the canonical correlation analysis from ﬁrst principles as detailed in Display 8.2. Assuming the head measurements data are contained in the

8.3 Canonical Correlations

161

Display 8.2 Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) • The purpose of canonical correlation analysis is to characterize the independent statistical relationships that exist between two sets of variables, x = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xq1 ] and y = [y1 , y2 , . . . , yq2 ]. • The overall (q1 + q2 ) × (q1 + q2 ) correlation matrix contains all the information on associations between pairs of variables in the two sets, but attempting to extract from this matrix some idea of the association between the two sets of variables is not straightforward. This is because the correlations between the two sets may not have a consistent pattern; and these between-set correlations need to be adjusted in some way for the within-set correlations. • The question is “How do we quantify the association between the two sets of variables x and y?” • The approach adopted in CCA is to take the association between x and y to be the largest correlation between two single variables u1 and v1 derived from x and y, with u1 being a linear combination of x1 , x2 , . . . , xq1 and v1 being a linear combination of y1 , y2 , . . . , yq2 . • But often a single pair of variables, (u1 , v1 ) is not sufﬁcient to quantify the association between the x and y variables, and we may need to consider some or all of s pairs (u1 , v1 ), (u2 , v2 ), . . . , (us , vs ) to do this, where s = min(q1 , q2 ). • Each ui is a linear combination of the variables in x, ui = ai x, and each vi is a linear combination of the variables y, vi = bi y, with the coefﬁcients (ai , bi )(i = 1, . . . , s) being chosen so that the ui and vi satisfy the following: (1) The ui are mutually uncorrelated, i.e., cov(ui , uj ) = 0 for i = j . (2) The vi are mutually uncorrelated, i.e., cov(vi , vj ) = 0 for i = j . (3) The correlation between ui and vi is Ri for i = 1, . . . , s, where R1 > R2 > · · · > Rs . (4) The ui are uncorrelated with all vj except vi , i.e., cov (ui , vj ) = 0 for i = j . • The linear combinations ui and vi are often referred to as canonical variates, a name used previously in Chapter 7 in the context of multiple discriminant function analysis. In fact there is a link between the two techniques. If we perform a canonical correlation analysis with the data X deﬁning one set of variables and a matrix of group indicators, G, as the other we obtain the linear discriminant functions. Details are given in Mardia et al. (1979). • The vectors ai and bi i = 1, . . . , s, which deﬁne the required linear combinations of the x and y variables, are found as the eigenvectors of matrices E1 (q1 × q1 ) (the ai ) and E2 (q2 × q2 ) (the bi ) deﬁned as −1 −1 E1 = R11 R12 R22 R21 ,

−1 −1 E2 = R22 R21 R11 R12 ,

162

• • • •

•

•

8. Multiple Regression and Canonical Correlation

where R11 is the correlation matrix of the variables in x, R22 is the correlation matrix of the variables in y, and R12 (= R21 ) the q1 × q2 matrix of correlations across the two sets of variables. The canonical correlations R1 , R2 , . . . , Rs are obtained as the square roots of the nonzero eigenvalues of either E1 or E2 . The s canonical correlations R1 , R2 , . . . , Rs express the association between the x and y variables after removal of the within-set correlation. More details of the calculations involved and the theory behind canonical correlation analysis are given in Krzanowski (1988). Inspection of the coefﬁcients of each original variable in each canonical variate can provide an interpretation of the canonical variate in much the same way as interpreting principal components (see Chapter 3). Such interpretation of the canonical variates may help to describe just how the two sets of original variables are related (see Krzanowski 2004). In practice, interpretation of canonical variates can be difﬁcult because of the possibly very different variances and covariances among the original variables in the two sets, which affects the sizes of the coefﬁcients in the canonical variates. Unfortunately there is no convenient normalization to place all coefﬁcients on an equal footing (see Krzanowski, 2004). In part this problem can be dealt with by restricting interpretation to the standardized coefﬁcients, that is, the coefﬁcients that are appropriate when the original variables have been standardized.

data frame, headsize, the necessary R and S-PLUS code is: headsize.std<-sweep(headsize,2, sqrt(apply(headsize,2,var)),FUN="/") #standardize head measurements by #dividing by the appropriate standard deviation # # headsize1<-headsize.std[,1:2] headsize2<-headsize.std[,3:4] # #find all the matrices necessary for calculating the #canonical variates and canonical correlations # R11<-cor(headsize1) R22<-cor(headsize2) R12<-c(cor(headsize1[,1],headsize2[,1]),cor(headsize1[,1], headsize2[,2]), cor(headsize1[,2],headsize2[,1]),cor(headsize1[,2], headsize2[,2]))

8.3 Canonical Correlations

163

Table 8.2 Head Sizes in Pairs of Sons (mm) x1

x2

x3

x4

191 195 181 183 176 208 189 197 188 192 179 183 174 190 188 163 195 186 181 175 192 174 176 197 190

155 149 148 153 144 157 150 159 152 150 158 147 150 159 151 137 155 153 145 140 154 143 139 167 163

179 201 185 188 171 192 190 189 197 187 186 174 185 195 187 161 183 173 182 165 185 178 176 200 187

145 152 149 149 142 152 149 152 159 151 148 147 152 157 158 130 158 148 146 137 152 147 143 158 150

x1 = head length of ﬁrst son; x2 = head breadth of ﬁrst son; x3 = head length of second son; x4 = head breadth of second son.

# R12<-matrix(R12,ncol=2,byrow=T) R21<-t(R12) # #see display 8.2 for relevant equations E1<-solve(R11)%*%R12%*%solve(R22)%*%R21 E2<-solve(R22)%*%R21%*%solve(R11)%*%R12 # E1 E2 # eigen(E1) eigen(E2)

The results are shown in Table 8.3. Here the four linear functions are found to be u1 = 0.69x1 + 0.72x2 , u2 = 0.71x1 − 0.71x2 ,

v1 = 0.74x1 + 0.67x2 , v2 = 0.70x1 − 0.71x2 .

164

8. Multiple Regression and Canonical Correlation Table 8.3 Canonical Correlation Analysis Results on Headsize Data "

0.306 0.314 " 0.330 E2 = 0.295

E1 =

0.305 0.319

$

0.324 0.295

$

Eigenvalues of E1 and E2 are √ √ 0.62 and 0.0029, giving the canonical correlations as 0.6215 = 0.7885 and 0.0029 = 0.0537 The respective eigenvectors are; a1 a2 b1 b2

= [0.695, 0.719], = [0.709, −0.705], = [0.742, 0.670], = [0.705, 0.711].

The ﬁrst canonical variate for both ﬁrst and second sons is simply a weighted sum of the two head measurements and might be labelled “girth”; these two variates have a correlation of 0.79. Each second canonical variate is a weighted difference of the two head measurements and can be interpreted roughly as head “shape”; here the correlation is 0.05. (Girth and shape are deﬁned to be uncorrelated within ﬁrst and second sons, and also between ﬁrst and second sons.)

Figure 8.1 Scatterplots of girth and shape for ﬁrst and second sons.

8.3 Canonical Correlations

165

In this example it is clear that the association between the two head measurements of ﬁrst and second sons is almost entirely expressed through the “girth” variables with the two “shape” variables being almost uncorrelated. The association between the two sets of measurements is essentially one-dimensional. A scatterplot of girth for ﬁrst and second sons and a similar plot for shape reinforce this conclusion. The plots are both shown in Figure 8.1 which is obtained as follows; girth1<-0.69*headsize.std[,1]+0.72*headsize.std[,2] girth2<-0.74*headsize.std[,3]+0.67*headsize.std[,4] shape1<-0.71*headsize.std[,1]-0.71*headsize.std[,2] shape2<-0.70*headsize.std[,3]-0.71*headsize.std[,4] # cor(girth1,girth2) cor(shape1,shape2) # par(mfrow=c(1,2)) plot(girth1,girth2) plot(shape1,shape2)

The correlations between girth for ﬁrst and second sons and similarly for shape calculated by this code are included to show that they give the same values (apart from rounding differences) as the canonical correlation analysis. We can now move on to a more substantial example taken from Aﬁﬁ et al. (2004), and also discussed by Krazanowski (2004). The data for this example arise from a study of depression amongst 294 respondents in Los Angeles. The two sets of variables of interest were “health variables,” namely the CESD (the sum of 20 separate numerical scales measuring different aspects of depression) and a measure of general health and “personal” variables, of which there were four, gender, age, income and educational level (numerically, coded from the lowest “less than high school,” to the highest, “ﬁnished doctorate”). The sample correlation matrix between these variables is given in Table 8.4. Here the maximum number of canonical variate pairs is 2, and they can be found using the following R and S-PLUS code: r22<-matrix(c(1.0,0.044,-0.106,-0.180,0.044,1.0,-0.208, -0.192,-0.106,-0.208,1.0,0.492,-0.180,-0.192,0.492,1.0), ncol=4,byrow=T) r11<-matrix(c(1.0,0.212,0.212,1.0),ncol=2,byrow=2) Table 8.4 Sample Correlation Matrix for the Six Variables in the Los Angeles Depression Study CESD Health Gender Age Education Income

CESD

Health

1.0 0.212 0.124 −0.164 −0.101 −0.158

0.121 1.0 0.098 0.308 −0.270 −0.183

Gender 0.124 0.098 1.0 0.044 −0.106 −0.180

Age −0.164 0.308 0.044 1.0 −0.208 −0.192

Education −0.101 −0.270 −0.106 −0.208 1.0 0.492

Income −0.158 −0.183 −0.180 −0.192 0.492 1.0

166

8. Multiple Regression and Canonical Correlation

r12<-matrix(c(0.124,-0.164,-0.101,-0.158,0.098,0.308, -0.270,-0.183),ncol=4,byrow=T) r21<-t(r12) # E1<-solve(r11)%*%r12%*%solve(r22)%*%r21 E2<-solve(r22)%*%r21%*%solve(r11)%*%r12 # E1 E2 # eigen(E1) eigen(E2)

The results are shown in Table 8.5. The ﬁrst canonical correlation is 0.409 which if tested as outlined in Exercise 8.3 and has an associated p-value that is very small. There is strong evidence that the ﬁrst canonical correlation is signiﬁcant. The corresponding variates, in terms of standardized original variables, are u1 = 0.461 CESD − 0.900 Health, v1 = 0.024 Gender + 0.885 Age − 0.402 Education + 0.126 Income. High coefﬁcients correspond to CESD (positively) and health (negatively) for the perceived health variables, and to age (positively) and education (negatively) Table 8.5 Canonical Variates and Correlation for Los Angeles Depression Study Variables eigen(R1) $values: [1] 0.16763669 0.06806171 $vectors: numeric matrix: 2 rows, 2 columns. [,1] [,2] [1,] 0.4610975 -0.9476307 [2,] -0.8998655 -0.3193681 eigen(R2) $values: [1] 1.676367e-001 6.806171e-002 -1.734723e-018 0.000000e+000 $vectors: numeric matrix: 4 rows, 4 columns. [,1] [,2] [,3] [1,] 0.02424121 0.6197600 -0.03291919 [2,] 0.88498865 -0.6301703 -0.16889507 [3,] -0.40155454 -0.6503368 -0.53979845 [4,] 0.12576714 -0.8208262 0.49453453 sqrt(eigen(R1)$values) [1] 0.4094346 0.2608864

[,4] -0.9378101 -0.1840554 -0.3193533 -0.3408145

8.4 Summary

167

for the personal variables. It appears that relatively older and medicated people tend to have a lower depression score, but perceive their health as relatively poor, while relatively younger but educated people have the opposite health perception. (I am grateful to Krzanowski, 2004, for this interpretation.) The second canonical correlation is 0.261 which is again signiﬁcant (see Exercise 8.3 and 8.4). The corresponding canonical variates are u2 = 0.95 CESD − 0.32 Health, v2 = 0.620 Gender − 0.630 Age − 0.650 Education − 0.821 Income. Since the higher value of the gender variable is for females, the interpretation here is that relatively young, poor, and uneducated females are associated with higher depression scores and, to a lesser extent, with poor perceived health (again this interpretation is due to Krzanowski, 2004).

8.4 Summary Canonical correlation analysis has the reputation of being the most difﬁcult multivariate technique to interpret. In many respects it is a well earned reputation! Certainly one has to know the variables involved very well to have any hope of extracting a convincing explanation. But in some circumstances (the heads measurement data is an example), CCA does provide a useful description of the association between two sets of variables.

Exercises 8.1

If x is a q1 -dimensional vector and y a q2 -dimensional vector, show that they linear combinations a x and b y have correlation p(a, b) =

(a

a 12 b , 1/2 11 ab 22 b)

where 11 is the covariance matrix of the x variables, 22 the corresponding matrix for the y variables, and 12 the covariances across the two sets of variables. 8.2 Table 8.6 contains data from O’Sullivan and Mahon (1966) (data also given in Rencher, 1995), giving measurements on blood glucose for 52 women. The y’s represent fasting glucose measurements on three occasions and the x’s are glucose measurements one hour after sugar intake. Investigate the relationship between the two sets of variables using canonical correlation analysis. 8.3 Not all canonical correlations may be statistically signiﬁcant. An approximate test proposed by Bartlett (1947) can be used to determine how many signiﬁcant

168

8. Multiple Regression and Canonical Correlation Table 8.6 Blood Glucose Measurements on Three Occasions. From Methods of Multivariate Analysis, Rencher, A.C. Copyright © 1995. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fasting

One hour after sugar intake

y1

y2

y3

x1

x2

x3

60

69

62

97

69

98

56

53

84

103

78

107

80

69

76

66

99

130

55

80

90

80

85

114

62

75

68

116

130

91

74

64

70

109

101

103

64

71

66

77

102

130

73

70

64

115

110

109

68

67

75

76

85

119

69

82

74

72

133

127

60

67

61

130

134

121

70

74

78

150

158

100

66

74

78

150

131

142

83

70

74

99

98

105

68

66

90

119

85

109

78

63

75

164

98

138

103

77

77

160

117

121

77

68

74

144

71

153

66

77

68

77

82

89

70

70

72

114

93

122

75

65

71

77

70

109

91

74

93

118

115

150

66

75

73

170

147

121

75

82

76

153

132

115

74

71

66

413

105

100

76

70

64

114

113

129

74

90

86

73

106

116

74

77

80

116

81

77

67

71

69

63

87

70

78

75

80

105

132

80

64

66

71

86

94

133

67

71

69

63

87

70 (Continued)

8.4 Summary

169

Table 8.6 (Continued) Fasting

One hour after sugar intake

78

75

80

105

132

80

64

66

71

83

94

133

67

71

69

63

87

70

78

75

80

105

132

80

64

66

71

83

94

133

71

80

76

81

87

86

63

75

73

120

89

59

90

103

74

107

109

101

60

76

61

99

111

98

48

77

75

113

124

97

66

93

97

136

112

122

74

70

76

109

88

105

60

74

71

72

90

71

63

75

66

130

101

90

66

80

86

130

117

144

77

67

74

83

92

107

70

67

100

150

142

146

73

76

81

119

120

119

78

90

77

122

155

149

73

68

90

102

90

122

72

83

68

104

69

96

65

60

70

119

94

89

52

70

76

92

94

100

NOTE: Measurements are in mg/100 ml.

relationships exist. The test statistic for testing that at least one canonical correlation is signiﬁcant is s 1 20 = − n − (q1 + q2 + 1) log(1 − λi ) 2 i=1

where the λi are the eigenvalues of E1 and E2 . Under the null hypothesis that all correlations are zero 20 has a chi-square distribution with q1 × q2 degrees of freedom. Write R and S-PLUS code to apply this test to the headsize data and to the depression data.

170

8.4

8. Multiple Regression and Canonical Correlation

If the test in the previous exercise is signiﬁcant, then the largest canonical correlation is removed and the residual is tested for signiﬁcance using

φ12

s 1 = − n − (q1 + q2 +) log(1 − λi ). 2 i=2

Under the hypothesis that all but the largest canonical correlation is zero φ12 has a chi-square distribution with (q1 − 1)(q2 − 1) degrees of freedom. Amend the function written for Exercise 8.3 to include this further test and then extend it to test for the signiﬁcance of all the canonical correlations in both the headsize and depression data sets.

9

Analysis of Repeated Measures Data

9.1 Introduction The multivariate data sets considered in previous chapters have involved measurements or observations on a number of different variables for each object or individual in the study. In this chapter, however, we will consider multivariate data of a different nature, namely that resulting from the repeated measurements of the same variable on each unit in the sample. Examples of such data are common in many disciplines. Often the repeated measurements arise from the passing of time (longitudinal data) but this is not always so. The two data sets in Tables 9.1 and 9.2 illustrate both possibilities. The ﬁrst, taken from Crowder (1998), gives the loads required to produce slippage x of a timber specimen in a clamp. There are eight specimens, each with 15 repeated measurements. The second data set in Table 9.2 reported in Zerbe (1979) and also given in Davis (2002), consists of plasma inorganic phosphate measurements obtained from 13 control and 20 obese patients 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 3 hours after an oral glucose challenge. The distinguishing feature of a repeated measures study is that the response variable of interest and a set of explanatory variables are measured several times on each individual in the study. The main objective in such a study is to characterize change in the repeated values of the response variable and to determine the explanatory variables most associated with any change. Because several observations of the response variable are made on the same individual, it is likely that the measurements will be correlated rather than independent, even after conditioning on the explanatory variables. Consequently repeated measures data require special methods of analysis, and models for such data need to include parameters linking the explanatory variables to the repeated measurements, parameters analogous to those in the usual multiple regression model (see Chapter 8), and, in addition parameters that account for the correlational structure of the repeated measurements. It is the former parameters that are generally of most interest, with the latter often being regarded as nuisance parameters. But providing an adequate model for the correlational structure of the repeated measures is necessary to avoid misleading inferences about the parameters that are of most importance to the researcher.

171

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Specimen

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

3.36

3.17

3.96

2.97

2.46

2.85

2.69

2.38

0.10

5.45

5.33

6.46

4.68

4.28

4.89

4.75

4.34

0.20

7.08

7.14

8.14

6.66

5.88

6.61

7.04

6.64

0.30

8.32

8.29

9.35

8.11

7.43

8.09

9.20

8.05

0.40

9.91

9.86

10.72

9.64

8.32

9.72

10.94

9.78

0.50

11.06

11.07

11.84

11.06

9.92

11.03

12.23

12.21

12.13

12.85

12.25

11.10

12.14

13.19

12.05

Slippage 0.70

10.97

0.60

13.16

13.15

13.83

13.35

12.23

13.18

14.08

12.98

0.80

14.05

14.09

14.85

14.54

13.24

14.12

14.66

13.94

0.90

14.96

15.11

15.79

15.53

14.19

15.09

15.37

14.74

1.00

16.24

16.69

17.39

17.38

16.07

16.68

16.89

16.13

1.20

17.34

17.69

18.44

18.76

17.43

17.94

17.78

17.98

1.40

18.23

18.71

19.46

19.81

18.36

18.22

18.41

19.52

1.60

18.87

19.54

20.05

20.62

18.93

19.40

18.97

19.97

1.80

Table 9.1 Data Giving Loads Needed for a Given Slippage in 8 Specimens of Timber. From Nonlinear Growth Curves, Crowder, M.J., in Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, Armitage, P. and Colton, T. (Eds), Vol. 4, pp 3012–3014. Copyright © John Wiley & Sons Limited. Reproduced with permission.

172 9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data

9.1 Introduction Table 9.2 Plasma Inorganic Phosphate Levels from 33 Subjects. From Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Repeated Measurements, Davis, C.F., 2002. Copyright Springer-Verlag New York Inc. Reprinted with permission. Hours after glucose challenge Group control

Obese

ID

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

3

4

5

1

4.3

3.3

3.0

2.6

2.2

2.5

3.4

4.4

2

3.7

2.6

2.6

1.9

2.9

3.2

3.1

3.9

3

4.0

4.1

3.1

2.3

2.9

3.1

3.9

4.0

4

3.6

3.0

2.2

2.8

2.9

3.9

3.8

4.0

5

4.1

3.8

2.1

3.0

3.6

3.4

3.6

3.7

6

3.8

2.2

2.0

2.6

3.8

3.6

3.0

3.5

7

3.8

3.0

2.4

2.5

3.1

3.4

3.5

3.7

8

4.4

3.9

2.8

2.1

3.6

3.8

4.0

3.9

9

5.0

4.0

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.6

4.0

4.3

10

3.7

3.1

2.9

2.2

1.5

2.3

2.7

2.8

11

3.7

2.6

2.6

2.3

2.9

2.2

3.1

3.9

12

4.4

3.7

3.1

3.2

3.7

4.3

3.9

4.8

13

4.7

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.2

4.2

3.7

4.3

14

4.3

3.3

3.0

2.6

2.2

2.5

2.4

3.4

15

5.0

4.9

4.1

3.7

3.7

4.1

4.7

4.9

16

4.6

4.4

3.9

3.9

3.7

4.2

4.8

5.0

17

4.3

3.9

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.6

4.0

18

3.1

3.1

3.3

2.6

2.6

1.9

2.3

2.7

19

4.8

5.0

2.9

2.8

2.2

3.1

3.5

3.6

20

3.7

3.1

3.3

2.8

2.9

3.6

4.3

4.4

21

5.4

4.7

3.9

4.1

2.8

3.7

3.5

3.7

22

3.0

2.5

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.6

3.2

3.5

23

4.9

5.0

4.1

3.7

3.7

4.1

4.7

4.9

24

4.8

4.3

4.7

4.6

4.7

3.7

3.6

3.9

25

4.4

4.2

4.2

3.4

3.5

3.4

3.8

4.0

26

4.9

4.3

4.0

4.0

3.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

27

5.1

4.1

4.6

4.1

3.4

4.2

4.4

4.9

28

4.8

4.6

4.6

4.4

4.1

4.0

3.8

3.8

29

4.2

3.5

3.8

3.6

3.3

3.1

3.5

3.9

30

6.6

6.1

5.2

4.1

4.3

3.8

4.2

4.8

31

3.6

3.4

3.1

2.8

2.1

2.4

2.5

3.5

32

4.5

4.0

3.7

3.3

2.4

2.3

3.1

3.3

33

4.6

4.4

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.6

3.8

3.8

173

174

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data

Over the last decade methodology for the analysis of repeated measures data has been the subject of much research and development, and there are now a variety of powerful techniques available. A comprehensive account of these methods is given in Diggle et al. (2002) and Davis (2002). Here we will concentrate on a single class of methods, linear mixed effects models.

9.2 Linear Mixed Effects Models for Repeated Measures Data Linear mixed effects models for repeated measures data formalize the sensible idea that an individual’s pattern of responses is likely to depend on many characteristics of that individual, including some that are unobserved. These unobserved variables are then included in the model as random variables, that is, random effects. The essential feature of the model is that correlation amongst the repeated measurements on the same unit arises from stored, unobserved variables. Conditional on the values of the random effects, the repeated measurements are assumed to be independent, the so-called local independence assumption. Linear mixed effects models are introduced in Display 9.1 in the context of the timber slippage data in Table 9.1 by describing two commonly used models, the random intercept and random intercept and slope models. Display 9.1 Two Simple Linear Mixed Effects Models • Let yij represent the load in specimen i needed to produce a slippage of xj , with i = 1, . . . , 8 and j = 1, . . . , 15. A possible model for the yij might be yij = β0 + β1 xj + ui + εij

(A)

• Here the total residual that would be present in the usual linear regression model has been partitioned into a subject-speciﬁc random component ui , which is constant over time plus a residual εij , which varies randomly over time. The ui are assumed to be normally distributed with zero mean and variance σu2 . Similarly the εij are assumed to be normally distributed with zero mean and variance σ 2 . The ui and the εij are assumed to be independent of each other and of the xj . • The model in (A) is known as a random intercept model, the ui being the random intercepts. The repeated measurements for a specimen vary about that specimen’s own regression line which can differ in intercept but not in slope from the regression lines of other specimens. The random effects model possible heterogeneity in the intercepts of the individuals. • In this model slippage has a ﬁxed effect. • The random intercept model implies that the total variance of each repeated measurement is % & Var ui + εij = σu2 + σ 2 .

9.2 Linear Mixed Effects Models for Repeated Measures Data

175

• Due to this decomposition of the total residual variance into a between-subject component, σu2 , and a within-subject component, σ 2 , the model is sometimes referred to as a variance component model. • The covariance between the total residuals at two slippage levels j and j in the same specimen i is % & Cov ui + εij , ui + εij = σu2 . • Note that these covariances are induced by the shared random intercept; for specimens with ui > 0, the total residuals will tend to be greater than the mean, for specimens with ui < 0 they will tend to be less than the mean. • It follows from the two relations above that the residual correlations are given by σ2 Cor(ui + εij , ui + εij ) = 2 u 2 . σu + σ • This is an intraclass correlation interpreted as the proportion of the total residual variance that is due to residual variability between subjects. • A random intercept model constrains the variance of each repeated measure to be the same and the covariance between any pair of measurements to be equal. This is usually called the compound symmetry structure. • These constraints are often not realistic for repeated measures data. For example, for longitudinal data it is more common for measures taken closer to each other in time to be more highly correlated than those taken further apart. In addition the variances of the later repeated measures are often greater than those taken earlier. • Consequently for many such data sets the random intercept model will not do justice to the observed pattern of covariances between the repeated measures. A model that allows a more realistic structure for the covariances is one that allows heterogeneity in both slopes and intercepts, the random slope and intercept model. • In this model there are two types of random effects, the ﬁrst modelling heterogeneity in intercepts, ui1 , and the second modelling heterogeneity in slopes, ui2 . • Explicitly the model is yij = β0 + β1 xj + ui1 + ui2 xj + εij ,

(B)

where the parameters are not, of course, the same as in (A). • The two random effects are assumed to have a bivariate normal distribution with zero means for both variables, variances σu2 , σu2 and covariance σu1 u2 . 1 2 • With this model the total residual is ui1 + ui2 xj + εij with variance Var(ui1 + ui2 xj + εij ) = σu2 + 2σu1 u2 xj + σu2 xj2 + σ 2 , 1

which is no longer constant for different values of xj .

2

176

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data

• Similarly the covariance between two total residuals of the same individual Cov(ui1 + xj ui2 + εij , ui1 + ui2 xj + εij ) = σu21 + σu1 u2 (xj + xj ) + σu22 xj xj is not constrained to be the same for all pairs j and j . • Linear mixed-effects models can be estimated by maximum likelihood. However, this method tends to underestimate the variance components. A modiﬁed version of maximum likelihood, known as restricted maximum likelihood, is therefore often recommended; this provides consistent estimates of the variance components. Details are given in Diggle et al. (2002) and Longford (1993). • It should also be noted that re-estimating the models after adding or subtracting a constant from xj (e.g., its mean), will lead to different variance and covariance estimates, but will not affect ﬁxed effects. • Competing linear mixed-effects models can be compared using a likelihood ratio test. If, however, the models have been estimated by restricted maximum likelihood this test can only be used if both models have the same set of ﬁxed effects (see Longford, 1993).

Assuming that the data is available as shown in Table 9.1 as the matrix timber, we ﬁrst need to rearrange it into what is known as the long form before we can apply the lme function that ﬁts linear mixed effects models. This simply means that the repeated measurements are arranged “vertically” rather than horizontally as in Table 9.1. Suitable R and S-PLUS® code to make this rearrangement is x<-c(0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1.0,1.2,1.4, 1.6,1.8) # slippage<-rep(x,8) loads<-as.vector(t(timber)) specimen<-rep(1:8,rep(15,8)) # timber.dat<-data.frame(specimen,slippage,loads) #

The rearranged data (timber.dat) are shown in Table 9.3. We can now ﬁt the two models (A) and (B) as described in Display 9.1 and test one against the other using the lme function (in R the nlme library will ﬁrst need to be loaded); #in R use library(nlme) attach(timber.dat) #random intercept model

9.2 Linear Mixed Effects Models for Repeated Measures Data Table 9.3 Timber Data in “Long” Form Observation

Specimen

Slippage

Load

1

1

0.0

0.00

2

1

0.1

2.38

3

1

0.2

4.34

4

1

0.3

6.64

5

1

0.4

8.05

6

1

0.5

9.78

7

1

0.6

10.97

8

1

0.7

12.05

9

1

0.8

12.98

10

1

0.9

13.94

11

1

1.0

14.74

12

1

1.2

16.13

13

1

1.4

17.98

14

1

1.6

19.52

15

1

1.8

19.97

16

2

0.0

0.00

17

2

0.1

2.69

18

2

0.2

4.75

19

2

0.3

7.04

20

2

0.4

9.20

21

2

0.5

10.94

22

2

0.6

12.23

23

2

0.7

13.19

24

2

0.8

14.08

25

2

0.9

14.66

26

2

1.0

15.37

27

2

1.2

16.89

28

2

1.4

17.78

29

2

1.6

18.41

30

2

1.8

18.97

31

3

0.0

0.00

32

3

0.1

2.85

33

3

0.2

4.89

34

3

0.3

6.61

35

3

0.4

8.09

36

3

0.5

9.72 (Continued)

177

178

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data Table 9.3 (Continued) Observation

Specimen

Slippage

Load

37

3

0.6

11.03

38

3

0.7

12.14

39

3

0.8

13.18

40

3

0.9

14.12

41

3

1.0

15.09

42

3

1.2

16.68

43

3

1.4

17.94

44

3

1.6

18.22

45

3

1.8

19.40

46

4

0.0

0.00

47

4

0.1

2.46

48

4

0.2

4.28

49

4

0.3

5.88

50

4

0.4

7.43

51

4

0.5

8.32

52

4

0.6

9.92

53

4

0.7

11.10

54

4

0.8

12.23

55

4

0.9

13.24

56

4

1.0

14.19

57

4

1.2

16.07

58

4

1.4

17.43

59

4

1.6

18.36

60

4

1.8

18.93

61

5

0.0

0.00

62

5

0.1

2.97

63

5

0.2

4.68

64

5

0.3

6.66

65

5

0.4

8.11

66

5

0.5

9.64

67

5

0.6

11.06

68

5

0.7

12.25

69

5

0.8

13.35

70

5

0.9

14.54

71

5

1.0

15.53

72

5

1.2

17.38 (Continued)

9.2 Linear Mixed Effects Models for Repeated Measures Data Table 9.3 (Continued) Observation

Specimen

Slippage

Load

73

5

1.4

18.76

74

5

1.6

19.81

75

5

1.8

20.62

76

6

0.0

0.00

77

6

0.1

3.96

78

6

0.2

6.46

79

6

0.3

8.14

80

6

0.4

9.35

81

6

0.5

10.72

82

6

0.6

11.84

83

6

0.7

12.85

84

6

0.8

13.83

85

6

0.9

14.85

86

6

1.0

15.79

87

6

1.2

17.39

88

6

1.4

18.44

89

6

1.6

19.46

90

6

1.8

20.05

91

7

0.0

0.00

92

7

0.1

3.17

93

7

0.2

5.33

94

7

0.3

7.14

95

7

0.4

8.29

96

7

0.5

9.86

97

7

0.6

11.07

98

7

0.7

12.13

99

7

0.8

13.15

100

7

0.9

14.09

101

7

1.0

15.11

102

7

1.2

16.69

103

7

1.4

17.69

104

7

1.6

18.71

105

7

1.8

19.54

106

8

0.0

0.00

107

8

0.1

3.36

108

8

0.2

5.45 (Continued)

179

180

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data Table 9.3 (Continued) Observation

Specimen

Slippage

Load

109

8

0.3

7.08

110

8

0.4

8.32

111

8

0.5

9.91

112

8

0.6

11.06

113

8

0.7

12.21

114

8

0.8

13.16

115

8

0.9

14.05

116

8

1.0

14.96

117

8

1.2

16.24

118

8

1.4

17.34

119

8

1.6

18.23

120

8

1.8

18.87

timber.lme
The p-value associated with the likelihood ratio test is very small indicating that the random intercept and slope model is to be preferred over the simpler random intercept model for these data. The results from this model found from summary(timber.lme1)

are shown in Table 9.4. The regression coefﬁcient for slippage is highly signiﬁcant. We can ﬁnd the predicted values under this model and then plot them alongside a plot of the raw data using the following R and S-PLUS code: predictions<-matrix(predict(timber.lme1),ncol=15,byrow=T) par(mfrow=c(1,2)) matplot(x,t(timber),type="l",col=1,xlab="Slippage", ylab="Load",lty=1, Table 9.4 Results of Random Intercept and Slope Model for the Timber Data Effect Intercept Slippage

Estimated reg coeff

SE

DF

t-value

p-value

3.52 10.37

0.26 0.28

111 111

13.30 36.59

<0.0001 <0.0001

σˆ u1 = 0.042, σˆ u2 = 0.014, σˆ = 1.64.

9.2 Linear Mixed Effects Models for Repeated Measures Data

181

ylim=c(0,25)) title("(a)") matplot(x,t(predictions),type="l",col=1,xlab="Slippage", ylab="Load",lty=1, ylim=c(0,25)) title("(b)")

The resulting plot is shown in Figure 9.1 Clearly the ﬁt is not good. In fact, under the random intercept and slope model the predicted values for each specimen are almost identical, reﬂecting the fact that the estimated variances of both random effects are essentially zero. The plot of the observed values in Figure 9.1 shows that a quadratic term in slippage is essential in any model for these data. Including this as a ﬁxed effect, the required model is yij = β0 + β1 xj + β2 xj2 + ui1 + ui2 xj + εij .

(9.1)

The necessary R and S-PLUS code to ﬁt this model and test it against the previous random intercept and slope model is timber.lme2<-lme(loads∼slippage+I(slippage*slippage), random=∼slippage|specimen,data=timber.dat,method="ML") anova(timber.lme1,timber.lme2)

Figure 9.1 Observed timber data (a) and predicted values from random intercept and slope model (b).

182

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data Table 9.5 Results of Random Intercept and Slope Model with a Fixed Quadratic Effect for Slippage for Timber Data Effect Intercept Slippage Slippage2

Estimated reg coeff

Sd S.E

DF

t-value

p-value

0.94 19.89 −5.43

0.21 0.33 0.17

110 110 110

4.52 61.11 −32.62

<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

σˆ u1 = 0.049, σˆ u2 = 0.032, σˆ = 0.50.

The p-value from the likelihood ratio test is less than 0.0001 indicating that the model that includes a quadratic term does provide a much improved ﬁt. The results from this model are shown in Table 9.5. Both the linear and quadratic effects of slippage are highly signiﬁcant. We can now produce a similar plot to that in Figure 9.1 but showing the predicted values from the model in (9.1). The code is similar to that given above and so is not repeated again here. The resulting plot is shown in Figure 9.2. Clearly the model describes the data more satisfactorily although there remains an obvious problem which is taken up in Exercise 9.1. Now we can move on to consider the data in Table 9.2, which we assume are available as the matrix plasma. Here we will begin by plotting the data so that we

Figure 9.2 Observed timber data (a) and predicted values from random intercept and slope model that includes a quadratic effect for slippage (b).

9.2 Linear Mixed Effects Models for Repeated Measures Data

183

get some ideas as to what form of linear mixed effect model might be appropriate. First we plot the raw data separately for the control and the obese groups using the following code: par(mfrow=c(1,2)) matplot(matrix(c(0.0,0.5,1.0,1.5,2.0,2.5,3.0,4.0),ncol=1), t(plasma[1:13,]),type="l",col=1,lty=1, xlab="Time (hours after oral glucose challenge)", ylab="Plasma inorganic phosphate",ylim=c(1,7)) title("Control") matplot(matrix(c(0.0,0.5,1.0,1.5,2.0,2.5,3.0,4.0),ncol=1), t(plasma[14:33,]),type="l",col=1,lty=1, xlab="Time (hours after glucose challenge)",ylab="Plasma inorganic phosphate",ylim=c(1,7)) title("Obese")

This gives Figure 9.3. The proﬁles in both groups show some curvature, suggesting that a quadratic effect of time may be needed in any model. There also appears to be some difference in the shape of the curves in the two groups, suggesting perhaps the need to consider a group × time interaction. Next we plot the scatterplot matrices of the repeated measurements for the two groups using; pairs(plasma[1:13,]) pairs(plasma[14:33,])

Figure 9.3 Glucose challenge data for control and obese groups.

184

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data

The results are shown in Figures 9.4 and 9.5. Both plots indicate that the correlations of pairs of measurements made at different times differ so that the compound symmetry structure for these correlations is unlikely to be appropriate. On the basis of the plots in Figure 9.3–9.5 we will begin by ﬁtting the model in (9.1) with the addition, in this case, of an extra covariate, namely a dummy variable coding the group, control or obese, to which a subject belongs. We ﬁrst need to put the data into the long form and combine with the appropriate group coding, subject number, and time. The necessary R and S-PLUS code for this is: # group<-rep(c(0,1),c(104,160)) # time<-c(0.0,0.5,1.0,1.5,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0) time<-rep(time,33) # subject<-rep(1:33,rep(8,33)) plasma.dat<-cbind(subject,time,group,as.vector(t(plasma))) dimnames(plasma.dat)<-list(NULL,c("Subject","Time","Group", "Plasma")) plasma.df<-as.data.frame(plasma.dat) plasma.df$Group<-factor(plasma.df$Group,levels=c(0,1), labels=c("Control","Obese")) attach(plasma.df)

Figure 9.4 Scatterplot matrix for control group in Table 9.2.

9.2 Linear Mixed Effects Models for Repeated Measures Data

185

Figure 9.5 Scatterplot matrix for obese group in Table 9.2.

The ﬁrst part of the rearranged data is shown in Table 9.6. We can ﬁt the required model using plasma.lme1<-lme(Plasma∼Time+I(Time*Time)+Group,random =∼Time|Subject, data=plasma.df,method="ML") summary(plasma.lme1)

The results are shown in Table 9.7. The regression coefﬁcients for linear and quadratic time are both highly signiﬁcant. The group effect just fails to reach signiﬁcance at the 5% level. A conﬁdence interval for the group effect is obtained from 0.38 ± 2.04 × 0.19 giving [−0.001, 0.767]. (In S-PLUS the group effect and its standard error will be half those given in R corresponding to the group levels being coded by default as −1 and 1. This can be changed by use of the contr.treatment function.) Here to demonstrate what happens if we make a very misleading assumption about the correlational structure of the repeated measurements, we will compare the results in Table 9.7 with those obtained if we assume that the repeated measurements are independent. The independence model can be ﬁtted in the usual way with the lm function (see Chapter 8): summary(lm(Plasma∼Time+I(Time*Time)+Group,data=plasma.df))

The results are shown in Table 9.8. We see that under the independence assumption the standard error for the group effect is about one-half of that given in Table 9.7 and

186

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data Table 9.6 Part of Glucose Challenge Data in “Long” Form 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Subject

Time

Group

Plasma

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control

4.3 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.5 3.4 4.4 3.7 2.6 2.6 1.9 2.9 3.2 3.1 3.9 4.0 4.1 3.1 2.3

if used would lead to the claim of strong evidence of a difference between control and obese patients. We will now plot the predicted values from the ﬁtted linear mixed effects model for each group using predictions<-matrix(predict(plasma.lme1),ncol=8,byrow=T) par(mfrow=c(1,2)) matplot(matrix(c(0.0,0.5,1,1.5,2,3,4,5),ncol=1), t(predictions[1:13,]),type="l",lty=1,col=1, xlab="Time (hours after glucose challenge)",ylab="Plasma inorganic phosphate",ylim=c(1,7)) title("Control") matplot(matrix(c(0.0,0.5,1,1.5,2,3,4,5),ncol=1),

Table 9.7 Results from Random Slope and Intercept Model with Fixed Quadratic Time Effect Fitted to Glucose Challenge Data Effect Intercept Time Time2 Group

Estimated reg coeff 3.95 −0.83 0.16 0.38

σˆ u1 = 0.61, σˆ u2 = 0.12, σˆ = 0.42.

SE

DF

t-value

p-value

0.17 0.06 0.01 0.19

229 229 229 31

23.74 −13.34 14.47 2.03

<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.051

9.2 Linear Mixed Effects Models for Repeated Measures Data

187

Table 9.8 Results from Independence Model Fitted to Glucose Challenge Data Effect Intercept Time Time2 Group

Estimated reg coeff 3.91 −0.83 0.16 0.46

Sd S.E

t-value

p-value

0.11 0.10 0.02 0.09

36.25 −8.65 8.80 5.24

<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

t(predictions[14:33,]),type="l",lty=1,col=1, xlab="Time (hours after glucose challenge)",ylab="Plasma inorganic phosphate",ylim=c(1,7)) title("Obese")

This gives Figure 9.6. We can see that the model has captured the proﬁles of the control group relatively well but not those of the obese group. We need to consider a further model that contains a group × time interaction. The required model can be ﬁtted and tested against the previous model using

Figure 9.6 Fitted values from random intercept and slope model with ﬁxed quadratic effect for glucose challenge data.

188

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data

plasma.lme2<-lme(Plasma∼Time*Group+I(Time*Time),random =∼Time|Subject, data=plasma.df,method="ML") # anova(plasma.lme1,plasma.lme2)

The p-value associated with the likelihood ratio test is 0.0011, indicating that the model containing the interaction term is to be preferred. The results for this model are given in Table 9.9. The interaction effect is highly signiﬁcant. The ﬁtted values from this model are shown in Figure 9.7 (the code is very similar to that given for producing Figure 9.6). The plot shows that the new model has produced predicted values that more accurately reﬂect the raw data plotted in Figure 9.3. The predicted proﬁles for the obese group are “ﬂatter” as required. We can check the assumptions of the ﬁnal model ﬁtted to the glucose challenge data, that is, the normality of the random effect terms and the residuals by ﬁrst using the random.effects function to predict the former and the resid function to calculate the differences between the observed data values and the ﬁtted values, and then using normal probability plots on each. How the random effects are predicted is explained brieﬂy in Display 9.2. The necessary R and S-PLUS code to obtain the effects, residuals and plots is as follows: res.int<-random.effects(plasma.lme2)[,1] res.int res.slope<-random.effects(plasma.lme2)[,2] par(mfrow=c(1,3)) qqnorm(res.int,ylab="Estimated random intercepts", main="Random intercepts") qqnorm(res.slope,ylab="Estimated random slopes", main="Random slopes") resids<-resid(plasma.lme2) qqnorm(resids,ylab="Estimated residuals",main="Residuals")

The resulting plot is shown in Figure 9.8. The plot of the residuals is linear as required, but there is some slight deviation from linearity for each of the predicted random effects.

Table 9.9 Results from Random Intercept Slope and Model with Quadratic Time Effect and Group × Time Interaction Fitted to Glucose Challenge Data Effect Intercept Time Time2 Group Group × time

Estimated reg coeff 3.70 −0.73 0.16 0.81 −0.16

σˆ u1 = 0.57, σˆ u2 = 0.09, σˆ = 0.42.

SE

DF

t-value

p-value

0.18 0.07 0.01 0.22 0.05

228 228 228 31 228

20.71 −10.90 14.44 3.60 −3.51

<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0011 0.0005

9.2 Linear Mixed Effects Models for Repeated Measures Data

189

Figure 9.7 Fitted values from random intercept and slope model with ﬁxed quadratic effect and group × time interaction for glucose challenge data.

Display 9.2 Prediction of Random Effects • The random effects are not estimated as part of the model. However, having estimated the model, we can predict the values of the random effects. • According to Bayes theorem, the posterior probability of the random effects is given by Pr(u|y, x) = f (y|u, x)g(u), where f (y|u, x) is the conditional density of the responses given the random effects and covariates (a product of normal densities) and g(u) is the prior density of the random effects (multivariate normal). The means of this posterior distribution can be used as estimates of the random effects and are known as empirical Bayes estimates.

190

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data

• The empirical Bayes estimator is also known as a shrinkage estimator because the predicted random effects are smaller in absolute value than their ﬁxedeffect counterparts. • Best linear unbiased predictions (BLUPs) are linear combinations of the responses that are unbiased estimators of the random effects and minimize the mean square error.

9.3 Dropouts in Longitudinal Data A problem that frequently occurs when collecting longitudinal data is that some of the intended measurements are, for one reason or another, not made. In clinical trials, for example, some patients may miss one or more protocol scheduled visits after treatment has begun and so fail to have the required outcome measure taken. There will be other patients who do not complete the intended follow-up for some reason and drop out of the study before the end date speciﬁed in the protocol. Both situations result in missing values of the outcome measure. In the ﬁrst case these are intermittent, but dropping out of the study implies that once an observation at a particular time point is missing so are all the remaining planned observations.

Figure 9.8 Probability plots of predicted random intercepts, random slopes, and residuals for ﬁnal model ﬁtted to glucose challenge data.

9.3 Dropouts in Longitudinal Data

191

Many studies will contain missing values of both types, although in practice it is dropouts that cause most problems when turning to analyzing the resulting data set. An example of a set of longitudinal data in which a number of patients have dropped out is given in Table 9.10. These data are essentially a subset of those collected in a clinical trial that is described in detail in Proudfoot et al. (2003). The trial was designed to assess the effectiveness of an interactive program using multimedia techniques for the delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy for depressed patients and known as Beating the Blues (BtB). In a randomized controlled trial of the program, patients with depression recruited in primary care were randomized to either the BtB program, or to Treatment as Usual (TAU). The outcome measure used in the trial was the Beck Depression Inventory II (Beck et al., 1996) with higher values indicating more depression. Measurements of this variable were made on ﬁve occasions, one prior to the start of treatment and at two monthly intervals after treatment began. In addition whether or not a participant in the trial was already taking antidepressant medication was noted along with the length of time they had been depressed. To begin we shall graph the data here by plotting the boxplots of each of the ﬁve repeated measures separately for each treatment group. Assuming the data are available as the data frame btb.data the necessary code is par(mfrow=c(2,1)) boxplot(btb.data[Treatment=="TAU",4],btb.data [Treatment=="TAU",5],btb.data[Treatment=="TAU",6], btb.data[Treatment=="TAU",7],btb.data[Treatment=="TAU",8], names=c("BDIpre","BDI2m","BDI4m","BDI6m", "BDI8m"),ylab="BDI",xlab="Visit",col=1) title("TAU") boxplot(btb.data[Treatment=="BtheB",4],btb.data [Treatment=="BtheB",5],btb.data[Treatment=="BtheB",6], btb.data[Treatment=="BtheB",7],btb.data [Treatment=="BtheB",8],names=c("BDIpre","BDI2m","BDI4m", "BDI6m","BDI8m"),ylab="BDI",xlab="Visit",col=1) title("BtheB")

The resulting diagram is shown in Figure 9.9. Figure 9.9 shows that there is decline in BDI values in both groups with perhaps the values in the BtheB group being lower at each postrandomization visit. We shall ﬁt both random intercept and random intercept and slope models to the data including the pre-BDI values, treatment group, drugs, and length as ﬁxed-effect covariates. First we need to rearrange the data into the long form using the following code: n<-length(btb.data[,1]) # BDI<-as.vector(t(btb.data[,c(5,6,7,8)])) # treat<-rep(btb.data[,3],rep(4,n)) subject<-rep(1:n,rep(4,n)) preBDI<-rep(btb.data[,4],rep(4,n)) drug<-rep(btb.data[,1],rep(4,n))

192

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data

Table 9.10 Subset of Data from the Original BtB Trial Sub

DRUG

Duration

Treatment

BDIpre

BDI2m

BDI3m

BDI5m

BDI8m

1

n

>6 m

TAU

29

2

y

>6 m

BtheB

32

2

2

NA

NA

16

24

17

20

3

y

<6 m

TAU

25

4

n

>6 m

BtheB

21

20

NA

NA

NA

17

16

10

9

5

y

>6 m

BtheB

26

6

y

<6 m

BtheB

7

23

NA

NA

NA

0

0

0

0

7

y

<6 m

TAU

17

7

7

3

7

8

n

>6 m

TAU

20

20

21

19

13

9

y

<6 m

BtheB

18

13

14

20

11

10

y

>6 m

BtheB

20

5

5

8

12

11

n

>6 m

TAU

30

32

24

12

2

12

y

<6 m

BtheB

49

35

NA

NA

NA

13

n

>6 m

TAU

26

27

23

NA

NA

14

y

>6 m

TAU

30

26

36

27

22

15

y

>6 m

BtheB

23

13

13

12

23

16

n

<6 m

TAU

16

13

3

2

0

17

n

>6 m

BtheB

30

30

29

NA

NA

18

n

<6 m

BtheB

13

8

8

7

6

19

n

>6 m

TAU

37

30

33

31

22

20

y

<6 m

BtheB

35

12

10

8

10

21

n

>6 m

BtheB

21

6

NA

NA

NA

22

n

<6 m

TAU

26

17

17

20

12

23

n

>6 m

TAU

29

22

10

NA

NA

24

n

>6 m

TAU

20

21

NA

NA

NA

25

n

>6 m

TAU

33

23

NA

NA

NA

26

n

>6 m

BtheB

19

12

13

NA

NA

27

y

<6 m

TAU

12

15

NA

NA

NA

28

y

>6 m

TAU

47

36

49

34

NA

29

y

>6 m

BtheB

36

6

0

0

2

30

n

<6 m

BtheB

10

8

6

3

3

31

n

<6 m

TAU

27

7

15

16

0

32

n

<6 m

BtheB

18

10

10

6

8

33

y

<6 m

BtheB

11

8

3

2

15

34

y

<6 m

BtheB

6

7

NA

NA

NA

35

y

>6 m

BtheB

44

24

20

29

14

36

n

<6 m

TAU

38

38

NA

NA

NA (Continued)

9.3 Dropouts in Longitudinal Data

193

Table 9.10 (Continued) Sub

DRUG

Duration

Treatment

BDIpre

BDI2m

BDI3m

BDI5m

37

n

<6 m

38

y

>6 m

39

y

<6 m

BtheB

9

40

y

>6 m

TAU

38

41

y

<6 m

BtheB

46

42

n

<6 m

TAU

43

y

>6 m

TAU

44

n

>6 m

45

y

>6 m

46

n

47

y

48 49 50

BDI8m

TAU

21

14

20

1

8

TAU

34

17

8

9

13

7

1

NA

NA

27

19

20

30

40

NA

NA

NA

20

19

18

19

18

17

29

2

0

0

BtheB

18

20

NA

NA

NA

BtheB

42

1

8

10

6

<6 m

BtheB

30

30

NA

NA

NA

<6 m

BtheB

33

27

16

30

15

n

<6 m

BtheB

12

1

0

0

NA

y

<6 m

BtheB

2

5

NA

NA

NA

n

>6 m

TAU

36

42

49

47

40

51

n

<6 m

TAU

35

30

NA

NA

NA

52

n

<6 m

BtheB

23

20

NA

NA

NA

53

n

>6 m

TAU

31

48

38

38

37

54

y

<6 m

BtheB

55

y

<6 m

TAU

56

y

<6 m

BtheB

57

n

<6 m

TAU

58

n

<6 m

TAU

40

36

33

NA

NA

59

y

<6 m

BtheB

23

30

NA

NA

NA

60

n

>6 m

BtheB

14

3

NA

NA

NA

61

n

>6 m

TAU

22

20

16

24

16

62

n

>6 m

TAU

23

23

15

25

17

63

n

<6 m

TAU

15

7

13

13

NA

64

n

>6 m

TAU

65

n

>6 m

BtheB

66

n

>6 m

TAU

67

y

<6 m

TAU

17

9

3

1

0

68

y

<6 m

BtheB

33

18

16

NA

NA

69

n

<6 m

TAU

27

20

NA

NA

NA

70

n

<6 m

BtheB

27

30

NA

NA

NA

71

n

<6 m

BtheB

9

6

10

1

0

72

n

>6 m

BtheB

40

30

12

NA

NA

8

5

7

NA

NA

23

21

26

NA

NA

7

7

5

4

0

14

13

14

NA

NA

8

12

11

26

NA

12

18

NA

NA

NA

7

6

2

1

NA

(Continued)

194

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data

Table 9.10 (Continued) Sub

DRUG

Duration

73

n

>6 m

74

n

<6 m

75

n

76

y

77

Treatment

BDIpre

BDI2m

BDI3m

BDI5m

BDI8m

TAU

11

TAU

9

8

7

NA

NA

8

NA

NA

NA

>6 m

TAU

14

22

21

24

19

>6 m

BtheB

28

9

20

18

13

n

>6 m

BtheB

15

9

13

14

10

78

y

>6 m

BtheB

22

10

5

5

12

79

n

<6 m

TAU

23

9

NA

NA

NA

80

n

>6 m

TAU

21

22

24

23

22

81

n

>6 m

TAU

27

31

28

22

14

82

y

>6 m

BtheB

14

15

NA

NA

NA

83

n

>6 m

TAU

10

13

12

8

20

84

y

<6 m

TAU

21

9

6

7

1

85

y

>6 m

BtheB

46

36

53

NA

NA

86

n

>6 m

BtheB

36

14

7

15

15

87

y

>6 m

BtheB

23

17

NA

NA

NA

88

y

>6 m

TAU

35

0

6

0

1

89

y

<6 m

BtheB

33

13

13

10

8

90

n

<6 m

BtheB

19

4

27

1

2

91

n

<6 m

TAU

16

NA

NA

NA

NA

92

y

<6 m

BtheB

30

26

28

NA

NA

93

y

<6 m

BtheB

17

8

7

12

NA

94

n

>6 m

BtheB

19

4

3

3

3

95

n

>6 m

BtheB

16

11

4

2

3

96

y

>6 m

BtheB

16

16

10

10

8

97

y

<6 m

TAU

28

NA

NA

NA

NA

98

n

>6 m

BtheB

11

22

9

11

11

99

n

<6 m

TAU

13

5

5

0

6

100

y

<6 m

TAU

43

NA

NA

NA

NA

length<-rep(btb.data[,2],rep(4,n)) time<-rep(c(2,4,6,8),n) # # btb.bdi<-data.frame(subject,treat,drug,length,preBDI, time,BDI) # attach(btb.bdi)

9.3 Dropouts in Longitudinal Data

195

Figure 9.9 Boxplots for the repeated measures by treatment group for the BtheB data.

The resulting data frame btb.bdi contains a number of missing values and in applying the lme function these will need to be dropped. But notice it is only the missing values that are removed, not participants that have at least one missing value. All the available data is used in the model ﬁtting process. We can ﬁt the two models and test which is most appropriate using btbbdi.fit1 <- lme(BDI ∼ preBDI + time + treat + drug + length, method = "ML", random = ∼ 1 | subject, data= btb.bdi, na.action = na.omit) btbbdi.fit2 <- lme(BDI ∼ preBDI + time + treat + drug + length, method = "ML", random = ∼ time | subject,data = btb.bdi, na.action = na.omit) anova(btbbdi.fit1, btbbdi.fit2)

This results in Model df AIC BIC logLik Test L.Ratio p-value btbbdi.ﬁt1 1 8 1886.624 1915.702 −935.3121 btbbdi.ﬁt2 2 10 1889.808 1926.156 −934.9040 1 vs 2 0.8160734 0.665 Clearly the simpler random intercept model is adequate for these data. The results from this model can be found using summary(btbbdi.fit1)

and they are given in Table 9.11. Only time and the pre-BDI regression coefﬁcients are signiﬁcantly different from zero. In particular there is no occurring evidence of a treatment effect.

196

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data Table 9.11 Results from Random Intercept Model Fitted to BtheB Data Effect Intercept Pre BDI Time Treatment Drug Duration

Estimated reg coeff 5.94 0.64 −0.72 −2.37 −2.80 0.26

SE

DF t-value p-value

2.10 0.08 0.15 1.68 1.74 1.65

182 2.27 92 8.14 182 −4.86 92 −1.41 92 −1.61 92 0.16

0.0986 <.0001 <.0001 0.1616 0.1110 0.8769

σˆ u1 = 6.95, σˆ = 5.01.

We now need to consider brieﬂy how the dropouts may affect the analyses reported above. To understand the problems that patients dropping out can cause for the analysis of data from a longitudinal trial we need to consider a classiﬁcation of dropout mechanisms ﬁrst introduced by Rubin (1976). The type of mechanism involved has implications for which approaches to analysis are suitable and which are not. Rubin’s suggested classiﬁcation involves three types of dropout mechanism: • Dropout completely at random (DCAR): Here the probability that a patient drops out does not depend on either the observed or missing values of the response. Consequently the observed (nonmissing) values effectively constitute a simple random sample of the values for all subjects. Possible examples include missing laboratory measurements because of a dropped testtube (if it was not dropped because of the knowledge of any measurement), the accidental death of a participant in a study, or a participant moving to another area. Intermittent missing values in a longitudinal data set, whereby a patient misses a clinic visit for transitory reasons (“went shopping instead” or the like) can reasonably be assumed to be DCAR. Completely random dropout causes the least problem for data analysis, but it is a strong assumption. • Dropout at random (DAR): The dropout-at-random mechanism occurs when the probability of dropping out depends on the outcome measures that have been observed in the past, but given this information is conditionally independent of all the future (unrecorded) values of the outcome variable following dropout. Here “missingness” depends only on the observed data with the distribution of future values for a subject who drops out at a particular time being the same as the distribution of the future values of a subject who remains in at that time, if they have the same covariates and the same past history of outcome up to and including the speciﬁc time point. Murray and Findlay (1988) provide an example of this type of missing value from a study of hypertensive drugs in which the outcome measure was diastolic blood pressure. The protocol of the study speciﬁed that the participant was to be removed from the study when his/her blood pressure got too large. Here blood pressure at the

9.3 Dropouts in Longitudinal Data

197

time of dropout was observed before the participant dropped out, so although the dropout mechanism is not DCAR since it depends on the values of blood pressure, it is DAR, because dropout depends only on the observed part of the data. A further example of a DAR mechanism is provided by Heitjan (1997), and involves a study in which the response measure is body mass index (BMI). Suppose that the measure is missing because subjects who had high body mass index values at earlier visits avoided being measured at later visits out of embarrassment, regardless of whether they had gained or lost weight in the intervening period. The missing values here are DAR but not DCAR; consequently methods applied to the data that assumed the latter might give misleading results (see later discussion). • Nonignorable (sometimes referred to as informative): The ﬁnal type of dropout mechanism is one where the probability of dropping out depends on the unrecorded missing values—observations are likely to be missing when the outcome values that would have been observed had the patient not dropped out, are systematically higher or lower than usual (corresponding perhaps to their condition becoming worse or improving). A nonmedical example is when individuals with lower income levels or very high incomes are less likely to provide their personal income in an interview. In a medical setting possible examples are a participant dropping out of a longitudinal study when his/her blood pressure became too high and this value was not observed, or when their pain become intolerable and we did not record the associated pain value. For the BDI example introduced above, if subjects were more likely to avoid being measured if they had put on extra weight since the last visit, then the data are nonignorably missing. Dealing with data containing missing values that result from this type of dropout mechanism is difﬁcult. The correct analyses for such data must estimate the dependence of the missingness probability on the missing values. Models and software that attempt this are available (see, e.g., Diggle and Kenward, 1994) but their use is not routine and, in addition, it must be remembered that the associated parameter estimates can be unreliable. Under what type of dropout mechanism are the mixed effects models considered in this chapter valid? The good news is that such models can be shown to give valid results under the relatively weak assumption that the dropout mechanism is DAR (see Carpenter et al., 2002). When the missing values are thought to be informative, any analysis is potentially problematical. But Diggle and Kenward (1994) have developed a modeling framework for longitudinal data with informative dropouts, in which random or completely random dropout mechanisms are also included as explicit models. The essential feature of the procedure is a logistic regression model for the probability of dropping out, in which the explanatory variables can include previous values of the response variable, and, in addition, the unobserved value at dropout as a latent variable (i.e., an unobserved variable). In other words, the dropout probability is allowed to depend on both the observed measurement history and the unobserved

198

9. Analysis of Repeated Measures Data

value at dropout. This allows both a formal assessment of the type of dropout mechanism in the data, and the estimation of effects of interest, for example, treatment effects under different assumption about the dropout mechanism. A full account technical account of the model is given in Diggle and Kenward (1994) and a detailed example that uses the approach is described in Carpenter et al. (2002). One of the problems for an investigator struggling to identify the dropout mechanism in a data set is that there are no routine methods to help, although a number of largely ad hoc graphical procedures can be used as described in Diggle (1998), Everitt (2002), and Carpenter (2002). Exercise 9.4 considers one of these.

9.4 Summary Linear mixed effects models are extremely useful for modelling longitudinal data in particular and repeated measures data more generally. The models allow the correlations between the repeated measurements to be accounted for so that correct inferences can be drawn about the effects of covariates of interest on the repeated response values. In this chapter we have concentrated on responses that are continuous and conditional on the explanatory variables and random effects have a normal distribution. But random effects models can also be applied to nonnormal responses, for example, binary variables; see, for example, Everitt (2002). The lack of independence of repeated measures data is what makes the modelling of such data a challenge. But even when only a single measurement of a response is involved, correlation can, in some circumstances, occur between the response values of different individuals and cause similar problems. As an example consider a randomized clinical trial in which subjects are recruited at multiple study centers. The multicenter design can help to provide adequate sample sizes and enhance the generalizability of the results. However factors that vary by center, including patient characteristics and medical practice patterns, may exert a sufﬁciently powerful effect to make inferences that ignore the “clustering” seriously misleading. Consequently it may be necessary to incorporate random effects for centers into the analysis.

Exercises 9.1 The ﬁnal model ﬁtted to the timber data did not constrain the ﬁtted curves to go through the origin although this is clearly necessary. Fit an amended model where this constraint is satisﬁed and plot the new predicted values. 9.2 Investigate a further model for the glucose challenge data that allow a random quadratic effect. 9.3 Fit an independence model to the BtheB data and compare the estimated treatment effect conﬁdence interval with that from the random intercept model described in the text. 9.4 Investigate whether there is any evidence of an interaction between treatment and time for the Beat the Blues data.

9.4 Summary

9.5

199

One very simple procedure for assessing the dropout mechanism suggested in Carpenter et al. (2002) involves plotting the observations for each treatment group, at each time point, differentiating between two categories of patients; those who do and those who do not attend their next scheduled visit. Any clear difference between the distributions of values for these two categories indicates that dropout is not completely at random. Produce such a plot for the Beat the Blues data.

Appendix An Aide Memoir for R and S-PLUS®

1. Elementary Commands Elementary commands consist of either expressions or assignments. For example, typing the expression > 42 + 8

in the Commands window and pressing Return will produce the following output: [1]

50

In the remainder of this chapter, we will show the command (preceded by the prompt >) and the output as they would appear in the Commands window together like this: > 42 + 8 [1] 50

Instead of just evaluating an expression, we can assign the value to a scalar using the syntax scalar <- expression > x <- 42 + 8

Longer commands can be split over several lines by pressing Return before the command is complete. To indicate waiting for completion of a command, a “+” occurs instead of the > prompt. For illustration, we break the line in the assignment above: > x<+ 48+8

200

2. Vectors

201

2. Vectors A commonly used type of R and S-PLUS® object is a vector. Vectors may be created in several ways of which the most common is via the concentrate command, c, which combines all values given as arguments to the function into a vector. For example, >x<-c(1, 2, 3,4) >x [1] 1 2 3 4

Here, the ﬁrst command creates a vector and the second command, x, a short-form for print(x), causes the contents of the vector to be printed. (Note that R and S-PLUS are case sensitive, and so, for example, x and X are different objects.) The number of elements of a vector can be determined using the length() function: >length(x) [1] 4

The c function can also be used to combine strings which are denoted by enclosing them in “.” For example, >names <-c ("Brian", "Sophia", "Harry") >names [1] "Brian" "Sophia" "Harry"

The c() function also works with a mixture of numeric and string values, but in this case, all elements in the resulting vector will be converted to strings as in the following. > mix <-c(names, 55, 33) > mix [1] "Brian" "Sophia" "Harry" "55"

"33"

Vectors consisting of regular sequences of numbers can be created using the seq() function. The general syntax of this function is seq(lower, upper, increment). Some examples are given below: >seq (1, 5, 1) [1] 1 2 3 4 5 >seq (2, 20, 2) [1] 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 >x <-c(seq(1, 5, 1), seq (4, 20, 4)) >x [1] 1 2 3 4 5 4 8 12 16 20

When the increment argument is one it can be left out of the command. The same applies to the lower value. More information about the seq function and all other R and S-PLUS functions can be found using the help facilities, e.g., >help(seq)

shows the following information:

202

Appendix: An Aide Memoir for R and S-PLUS

Sequences with increments of one can also be obtained using the syntax first: last, for example, >1:5 [1] 1 2 3 4 5

A further useful function for creating vectors with regular patterns is the rep function, with general form rep(pattern, number of times). For example, >rep(10, 5) [1] 10 10 10 10 10 >rep (1:3, 3) [1] 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 > x <- rep(seq(5), 2) > x [1] 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

The second argument of rep can also be a vector of the same length as the ﬁrst argument to indicate how often each element of the ﬁrst argument is to be repeated as shown in the following; > x <- rep(seq (3), c(1, 2, 3)) > x [1] 1 2 2 3 3 3

Increasingly complex vectors can be built by repeated use of the rep function > x <- rep (seq (3), rep (3, 3)) > x [1] 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3

2. Vectors

203

We can access a particular element of a vector by giving the required position in square brackets- here are two examples > x <- 1:5 > x[3] [1] 3 >x[c(1, 4)] [1] 1 4

A vector containing several elements of another vector can be obtained by giving a vector of required positions in square brackets: > x[c(1, 3)] [1] 1 3 > x[1:3] [1] 1 2 3

We can carry out any of the arithmetic operations described in Table A.1 between two scalars, a vector and a scalar or two vectors. An arithmetic operation between two vectors returns a vector whose elements are the results of applying the operation to the corresponding elements of the original vectors. Some examples follow: > x<- 1:3 > x+2 [1] 3 4 5 >x + x [1] 2 4 6 > x* x [1] 1 4 9

We can also apply mathematical functions such as the square root or logarithm, or the others listed in Table A.2, to vectors. The functions are simply applied to each element of the vector. For example, > x <- 1:3 > sqrt (x*x) [1] 1 2 3

Table A.1 Arithmetic Operators Operator

Meaning

+ − ∗ /

Plus Minus Times Divided by Power

∧

Expression

Result

2+3 5−2 5∗2 10/2 2∧3

5 3 10 5 8

204

Appendix: An Aide Memoir for R and S-PLUS Table A.2 Common Functions S-PLUS function

Meaning

sqrt () log () log10 () exp () abs () round () ceiling () floor () sin (), cos (), tan () asin (), acos (), atan ()

Square root Natural logarithm Logarithm base 10 Exponential Absolute value Round to nearest integer Round up Round down sine, cosine, tangent arc sine, arc cosine, arc tangent

3. Matrices Matrix objects are frequently needed in R and S-PLUS and can be created by the use of the matrix function. The general syntax is matrix (data, nrow, ncol, byrow = F)

The last argument speciﬁes whether the matrix is to be ﬁlled row by row or column by column and takes on a logical value. The expression byrow=F indicates that F (false) is the default value. An example follows; > > > >

x <-c(1, 2, 3) y <-c(4, 5, 6) xy <- matrix (c(x, y), nrow =2) xy

[1,] [2,]

[,1] 1 2

[,2] 3 4

[,3] 5 6

Here the number of columns is not speciﬁed and so is determined by simple division: > xy <-matrix (c(x, y), nrow = 2, byrow =T) xy

[1,] [2,]

[,1] 1 4

[,2] 2 5

[,3] 3 6

Here the matrix, is ﬁlled row-wise instead of by columns by setting the byrow argument to T for True. A square bracket with two numbers separated by a comma is used to refer to an element of a matrix. The ﬁrst number speciﬁes the row, and the second speciﬁes the column. >xy [1, 3] [1] 3

The [i,] and [,j] nomenclature is used to refer to complete rows or columns of a matrix and can be used to extract particular rows or columns as shown in the following examples;

4. Logical Expressions

205

> xy [1,] [1] 1 2 3 > xy [,2] [1] 2 5 >xy [, c(1, 3)] [1,] [2,]

[,1] 1 4

[,2] 3 6

As with vectors, arithmetic operations operate element by element when applied to matrices, for example; > xy* xy [1,] [2,]

[,1] 1 16

[,2] 4 25

[,3] 9 36

Matrix multiplication is performed using the %∗% operation as here > xy %*% t(xy) [1,] [2,]

14 32

[,1] 32 77

[,2]

Here the matrix xy is multiplied by its transpose (obtained using the t () function). An attempt to apply matrix multiplication to xy by xy would, of course, result in an error message. It is usually extremely helpful to attach names to the rows and columns to a matrix. This can be done using the dimension() function. We shall illustrate this in Section 5 after we have covered list objects. As with vectors, matrices can be formed from numeric and string objects, but in the resulting matrix, all elements will be strings as illustrated below: > Mix <- matrix(c(names, 55, 32, 30), nrow = 2 + byrow = T) > Mix [1,] [2,]

[,1] "Brian" "55"

[,2] "Sophia" "32"

[,3] "Harry" "30"

Higher dimensional matrices with up to eight dimensions can be deﬁned using the array() function.

4. Logical Expressions So far, we have mentioned values of type numeric or character (string). When a numeric value is missing, it is of type NA. (Complex numbers are also available.) Another type in R and S-PLUS is logical. There are two logical values, T (true) and

206

Appendix: An Aide Memoir for R and S-PLUS Table A.3 Logical Operators Operator < > <= >= == != & | !

Meaning Less than Greater than Less than or equal to Greater than or equal to Equal to Not equal to And Or not

F (false), and a number of logical operations that are extremely useful when making comparisons and choosing particular elements from vectors and matrices. The symbols used for the logical operations are listed in Table A.3. We can use a logical expression to assign a logical value (T or F) to x: > x > x [1] > x > x [1] > x > x [1] > x > x [1]

<-3 = = 4 F <-3 < 4 T < - 3 = = 4 & 3 < 4 F < - 3 = = 4 | 3 < 4 T

In addition to logical operators, there are also logical functions. Some examples are given below: > is.numeric (3) [1] T > is.character (3) [1] F > is.character ("3") [1] T > 1/0 [1] Inf >is.numeric (1/0) [1] T >is.infinite (1/0) [1] T

Logical operators or functions operate on elements of vectors and matrices in the same say as arithmetic operators: > is.na(c(1, 0, NA, 1)) [1] F F T F

5. List Objects > ! [1] > x > x [1]

207

is.na (c(1, 0, NA, 1)) T T F T <- seq(20) <10 T T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F F F F

A logical vector can be used to extract a subset of elements from another vector as follows: > x[x <10] [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Here, the elements of the vector less than 10 are selected as the values corresponding to T in the vector x < 10. We can also select element in x depending on the values in another vector y : > x <-seq(50) > y <- c(rep(0, 10), rep(1, 40)) > x[y = =0] [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5. List Objects List objects allow any other R or S-PLUS objects to be linked together. For example, >x<-seq(10) >y<- matrix(seq(10), nrow = 5 >xylist<-list (x,y) >xylist [[1]]: [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [[2]]: [1,] [2,] [3,] [4,] [5,]

[,1] 1 2 3 4 5

[,2] 6 7 8 9 10

Note the elements of the list are referred to by a double square brackets notation; so we can print the ﬁrst component of the list using >xylist[[1]] [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The components of the list can also be given names and later referred using the list$name notation,

208

Appendix: An Aide Memoir for R and S-PLUS

>xylist <-list (X=x, Y=y) >xylist$X [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

List objects can, of course, include other list objects >newlist<-list(xy=xylist, z=rep(0,10)) >newlist$xy $X [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $Y: [1,] [2,] [3,] [4,] [5,]

1 2 3 4 5

[,1] 6 7 8 9 10

[,2]

>newlist$z [1] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The rows and columns of a matrix can be named using the dimnames() function and a list object >x<-matrix(seq(12), nrow=4) > dimnames(x)<-list(c("R1","R","R3","R4"), +c("C1", "C2", "C3")) >x

R1 R2 R3 R4

C1 1 2 3 4

C2 5 6 7 8

C3 9 10 11 12

The names can be created more efﬁciently by using the paste() function, which combines different strings and numbers into a single string > dimnames(x)<-list(paste("row", seq (4)), +paste ("col", seq(3))) >x col 1 col 2 col 3 row1 1 5 9 row2 2 6 10 row3 3 7 11 row4 4 8 12

Having named the rows and columns, we can, if required, refer to elements of the matrix using these names, >x["row 1", "col 3"] [1] 9

6. Data Frames

209

6. Data Frames Data sets in R and S-PLUS are usually stored as matrices, which we have already met, or as data frames, which we shall describe here. Data frames can bind vectors of different types together (e.g., numeric and character), retaining the correct type of each vector. In other respects, a data frame is like a matrix so that each vector should have the same number of elements. The syntax for creating a data frame is data.frame(vector1,vector 2, . . .), and an example of how a small data frame can be created is as follows: >height<-c(50, 70, 45, 80, 100) >weight<-c(120, 140, 100, 200, 190) >age<-c(20, 40, 41, 31, 33) >names<-c("Bob", "Ted", "Alice", "Mary", "Sue") sex<-c("Male", "Male", "Female", "Female") >data<-data.frame(names, sex, height, weight, age) >data 1 2 3 4 5

names Bob Ted Alice Mary Sue

sex Male Male Female Female Female

height 50 70 45 80 100

weight 120 140 100 200 190

age 20 40 41 31 33

Particular parts of a data frame can be extracted in the same way as for matrices >data[,c(1,2,5)] 1 2 3 4 5

names Bob Ted Ali Mary Sue

sex Male Male Female Female Female

age 20 40 41 31 33

Column names can also be used >data[,"age"] [1] 20 40 41 31 33

Variables can also be accessed as in lists: >data$age [1] 20 40 41 31 33

It is, however, more convenient to “attach” a data frame and work with the column names directly, for example,

210

Appendix: An Aide Memoir for R and S-PLUS

>attach (data) >age [1] 20 40 41 31 33

Note that the attach() command places the data frame in the 2nd position in the search path. If we assign a value to age, for example, >age <-10 >age [1] 10

This creates a new object in the ﬁrst position of the search path that “masks” the age variable of the data frame. Variables can be removed from the ﬁrst position in the search path using the rm() function: >rm(age)

To change the value of age within the data frame, use the syntax >data$age<-c(20, 30, 45, 32, 32)

References

Aﬁﬁ, AA, Clark, VA and May, S. (2004) Computer-Aided Multivariate Analysis, (4th ed.). London: Chapman and Hall. Alon, U, Barkai, N, Notterman, DA, Gish, K, Ybarra, S, Mack, D, and Levine, AJ (1999) Broad patterns of gene expressions revealed by clustering analysis of tumor and normal colon tissues probed by oligonucleotide arrays. Cell Biology, 99, 6745–6750. Anderson, JA (1972) Separate sample logistic discrimination. Biometrika, 59, 19–35. Banﬁeld, JD and Raftery, AE (1993) Model-based Gaussian and non-Gaussian clustering. Biometrics, 49, 803–821. Bartholomew, DJ (1987) Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bartlett, MS (1947) Multivariate analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 9, 176–197. Becker, RA and Cleveland, WS (1994) S-PLUS Trellis Graphics User’s Manual Version 3.3. Seattle: Mathsoft, Inc. Benzécri, JP (1992) Correspondence Analysis Handbook. New York: Marcel Dekker. Blackith, RE and Rayment, RA (1971) Multivariate Morphometrics. London: Academic Press. Carpenter, J, Pocock, SJ, and Lamm, CJ (2002) Coping with missing data in clinical trials: A model-based approach applied to asthma trials. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1043–1066. Chambers, JM, Cleveland, WS, Kleiner, B, and Tukey, PA (1983) Graphical Methods for Data Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Chatﬁeld, C and Collins, AJ (1980) Introduction to Multivariate Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall. Cleveland, WS (1979) Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 829–836. Cleveland, WS and McGill, ME (1987) Dynamic Graphics for Statistics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Crowder, MJ (1998) Nonlinear growth curve. In Encyclopedia of Biostatistics (eds. P Armitage and T Colton). Chichester: Wiley. Dalgaard, P (2002) Introductory Statistics with R. New York: Springer. Davis, CS (2002) Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Repeated Measurements. New York: Springer. Dempster, AP, Laird, NM and Ruben, DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, 39, 1–38. 211

212

References

de Leeuw, J (1985) Book review. Psychometrika, 50, 371–375. Diggle, PJ (1998) Dealing with missing values in longitudinal studies. In Statistical Analysis of Medical Data (eds. BS Everitt and G Dunn). London: Arnold. Diggle, PJ, Heagerty, P, Liang, KY, and Zeger, SL (2002) Analysis of Longitudinal Data. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Diggle, PJ and Kenward, MG (1994) Informative dropout in longitudinal analysis (with discussion) Applied Statistics, 43, 49–93. Dunn, G, Everitt, BS, and Pickles, A (1993) Modelling Covariances and Latent Variables Using EQS. London: Chapman and Hall. Everitt, BS (1984) An Introduction to Latent Variable Models. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC/ Chapman and Hall. Everitt, BS (1987) Statistics in Psychiatry. Statistical Science, 2, 107–134. Everitt, BS (2002) Modern Medical Statistics: A Practical Guide. London: Arnold. Everitt, BS and Bullmore, ET (1999) Mixture model mapping of brain activation in functional magnetic resonance images. Human Brain Mapping, 7, 1–14. Everitt, BS and Dunn, G (2001) Applied Multivariate Data Analysis (2nd ed.). London: Arnold. Everitt, BS, Gourlay, J, and Kendall, RE (1971) An attempt at validation of traditional psychiatric syndromes by cluster analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 119, 299–412. Everitt, BS, Landau, S, and Leese, M (2001) Cluster Analysis (4th ed.). London: Arnold. Everitt, BS and Rabe-Hesketh, S (1997) The Analysis of Proximity Data. London: Arnold. Feyerabend, P (1975) Against Method. London: Verso. Fisher, NI and Switzer, P (1985) Chi-plots for assessing dependence. Biometrika, 72, 253–265. Fisher, NI and Switzer, P (2001) Graphical assessment of dependence: Is a picture worth 100 tests? The American Statistician, 55, 233–239. Fisher, RA (1936) The use of multiple measurements on taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics, 7, 179–188. Fraley, C and Raftery, AE (1998) How many clusters? Which cluster method? Answers via model-based cluster analysis. The Computer Journal, 41, 578–588. Fraley, C and Raftery, AE (1999) MCLUS: Software for the model-based cluster analysis. Journal of Classiﬁcation, 16, 297–306. Fraley, C and Raftery, AE (2002) Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 611–631. Frets, GP (1921) Heredity of head form in man. Genetica, 3, 193–384. Friedman, HP and Rubin, J (1967) On some invariant criteria for grouping data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 1159–1178. Friedman, JH (1989) Regularized discriminant analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 165–175. Goldberg, KM and Iglewicz, B (1992) Bivariate extensions of the boxplot. Technometrics, 34, 307–320. Gordon, AD (1999) Classiﬁcation (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press. Gower, JC (1966) Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika, 53, 325–338. Greenacre, M (1992) Correspondence analysis in medical research. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 1, 97–117.

References

213

Hancock, BW, Aitken, M, Martin, JF, Dunsmore, IR, Ross, CM, Carr, I, and Emmanuel, IG (1979) Hodgkin’s disease in Shefﬁeld (1971–1976). Clinical Oncology, 5, 283–297. Hand, DJ (1998) Discriminant analysis, linear. In Encyclopedia of Biostatistics (eds. P Armitage and T Colton). Chichester: Wiley. Hawkins, DM, Muller, MW, and ten Krooden, JA (1982) Cluster analysis. In Topics in Applied Multivariate Analysis (ed. DM Hawkins). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heitjan, DF (1997). Ignorability, sufﬁciency and ancillarity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological) 59, 375, 381. Henderson, HV and Velleman, PF (1981) Building multiple regression models interactively. Biometrics, 37, 391–411. Hendrickson, AE and White, PO (1964) Promax: A quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. British Journal of Mathematical Statistical Psychology, 17, 65–70. Heywood, HB (1931) On ﬁnite sequences of real numbers. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A, 134, 486–501. Hills, M (1977) Book review. Applied Statistics, 26, 339–340. Hotelling, H (1933) Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into prinicpal components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 417–441. Huba, GJ, Wingard, JA, and Bentler, PM (1981) A comparison of two latent variable causal models for adolescent drug use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 180–193. Hyvarinen, A, Karhunen, J, and Oja, E (2001) Independent Component Analysis. New York: Wiley. Jennrich, RI and Sampson, PF (1966) Rotation for simple loadings. Psychometrika, 31. Johnson, RA and Wichern, DW (2003) Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis: PrenticeHall. Jolliffe, IT (1972) Discarding variables in a principal components analysis I: Artiﬁcial data. Applied Statistics, 21, 160–173. Jolliffe, IT (1986) Principal Components Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. Jolliffe, IT (1989) Roation of ill-deﬁned principal components. Applied Statistics, 38, 139–148. Jolliffe, IT (2002) Principal Component Analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. Jones, MC and Sibson, R (1987) What is projection pursuit? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 150, 1–36. Kaiser, HF (1958) The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis, Psychometrika, 23, 187–200. Keyﬁtz, N and Flieger, W (1971) Population: The Facts and Methods of Demography. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Krause, A and Olsen, M (2002) The Basics of S-PLUS (3rd ed.). New York: Springer. Krzanowski, WJ (1988) Principles of Multivariate Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krzanowski, WJ (2004) Canonical correlation. In Encyclopedic Companion to Medical Statistics (eds. BS Everitt and C. Palmer). London: Arnold. Lackey, NR and Sullivan, J (2003) Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research. Sage Publications. Lawley, DN and Maxwell, AE (1971) Factor Analysis as a Statistical Method (2nd ed.). London: Butterworths. Little, RJA and Rubin, DB (1987) Statisticial Analysis with Missing Data. New York: Wiley. Longford, N (1993) Inference about variation in clustered binary data. In Multilevel Conference. Los Angeles.

214

References

Mardia, KV, Kent, JT, and Bibby, JM (1979) Multivariate Analysis. London: Academic Press. Marriott, FHC (1982) Optimization methods of cluster analysis. Biometrika, 69, 417–421. Mayor, M, Frei, P-Y, and Roukema, B (2003) New Worlds in the Cosmos: The Discovery of Exoplanets. English language edition, Cambridge University Press 2003; originally published as Les Nouveaux Mondes du Cosmos, Editions du Seuil 2001. McDonald, GC and Schwing, RC (1973) Instabilities of regression estimates relating air pollution to mortality. Technometrics, 15, 463–482. Morant, GM (1923) A ﬁrst study of the Tibetan skull. Biometrika, 14, 193–260. Morrison, DF (1990) Multivariate Statistical Methods (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Murray, GD and Findlay, JG (1988) Correcting for the bias caused by dropouts in hypertension trials. Statistics in Medicine, 7, 941–946. Muthen, LK and Muthen, BO (1998) Mplus Users Guide. O’Sullivan, JB and Mahon, CM (1966) Glucose tolerance test: variability in pregnant and non-pregnant women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 19, 345–351. Pearson, K (1901) On lines and planes of closest ﬁt to systems of points in space. Philosophical Magazine, 2, 559–572. Proudfoot, J, Goldberg, D, Mann, A, Everitt, BS, Marks, I, and Gray, J (2003) Computerised, interactive, multimedia cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety and depression in general practice. Psychological Medicine, 33, 217–227. Rawlings, JO, Pantula, SG, and Dickey, AD (1998) Applied Regression Analysis. New York: Springer. Rencher, AC (1995) Methods of Multivariate Analysis. New York: Wiley. Rohlf, FJ (1970) Adaptive hierarchical clustering schemes. Systematic Zoology, 19, 58–82. Rousseeuw, PJ (1985) Multivariate estimation with high breakdown point. In Mathematical Statistics and Applications (eds. W Grossman, G Pﬁlug, I Vincze, and W Wertz). Dordrecht: Reidel. Rousseeuw, PJ and van Zomeren, B (1990) Unmasking multivariate outliers and leverage points (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 633–651. Rubin, DB (1976) Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581–592. Rubin, DB (1987) Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley. Schafer, JL (1999) Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 3–15. Schimert, J, Schafer, JL, Hesterberg, T, Fraley C, and Clarkson, DB (2000) Analysing Data with Missing Values in S-PLUS. Seattle: Insightful Corporation. Scott, AJ and Symons, MJ (1971) Clustering methods based on likelihood ratio criteria. Biometrics, 37, 387–398. Sibson, R (1979) Studies in the robustness of multidimensional scaling. Perturbational analyis of classical scaling. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 41, 217–229. Silverman, BW (1986) Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall. Spearman, C (1904) General intelligence objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293. Spicer, CC, Laurence, GJ, and Southall, DP (1987) Statistical analysis of heart rates and subsequent victims of sudden infant death syndrome. Statistics in Medicine, 6, 159–166. Tabachnick, BG and Fidell, B (2000) Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon. Thurstone, LL (1931) Multiple factor analysis. Psychology Review, 39, 406–427.

References

215

Tubb, A, Parker, NJ, and Nickless, G (1980) The analysis of Romano-British pottery by atomic absorption spectroplotomy. Archaeometry, 22, 2, 153–171. Tufte, ER (1983) The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. Velleman, PF and Wilkinson, L (1993) Normal, ordinal, internal and ratio typologies are misleading. The American Statistician, 47, 65–72. Verbyla, AP, Cullis, BR, Kenward, MG, and Welham, SJ (1999) The analysis of designed experiments and longitudinal data using smoothing splines (with discussion). Applied Statistics, 48, 269–312. Wand, MP and Jones, CM (1995) Kernel Smoothing. London: Chapman and Hall. Ward, JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244. Wastell, DG and Gray, R (1987) The numerical approach to classiﬁcation: a medical application to develop a typoloty of facial pairs. Statistics in Medicine, 6, 137–164. Wermuth, N (1976) Exploratory analyses of multidimensional contingency tables. In Proceedings 9th International Biometrics Conference, pp. 279–295: Biometrics Society. Young, G and Householder, AS (1938) Discussion of a set of points in terms of their mutual distances. Psychometrika, 3, 19–22. Zerbe, GO (1979) Randomization analysis of the completely randomized design extended to growth and response curves. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 215–221.

Index

agglomerative hierarchical clustering cluster analysis and, 115–123 complete linkage clustering, 118 data partitions in, 116–117 dendrograms and, 117, 121 evolutionary trees and, 117 group average clustering and, 118 intercluster dissimilarity, 118–123 single linkage clustering, 118 airline distances, 98–99 air pollution, studies of, 17–22, 49–61, 159 average linkage methods, 134 Bartlett test, 170 Bayes theorem, 189 Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), 130 Beating the Blues (BtB) program, 191 Beck Depression Inventory, 191 best linear unbiased predictions (BLUPs), 190 BIC. See Bayesian Information Criterion bivariate methods, 29–32 boxplots and, 25–29 convex hull approach, 22–23 correspondence analysis and, 104–105 density estimates and, 29–32 kernel function, 29 See also speciﬁc topics BLUPs. See best linear unbiased predictions boxplots, 16, 25–29 bubbleplots, 32 canonical correlation analysis (CCA), 160–167 canonical variates, 149–155

CCA. See canonical correlation analysis chi-square distributions, 10–12, 149 chiplot function, 23–25, 149 chi-squared test, 104 distance in, 104–108 plots of, 10–11, 23–25, 149 classiﬁcation functions, 149–155 classiﬁcation maximum likelihood methods, 115, 129–134 cluster analysis, 29, 115–136 agglomerative hierarchical clustering, 115–123 classiﬁcation maximum likelihood and, 129–134 k-means clustering, 123–128 model-based clustering, 128–134 three types of, 115 cognitive behavioral therapy, 191 common factors, 65–68 communality, of variables, 67–68 complete-case analysis, 3 complete linkage methods, 118, 134 compound symmetry structure, 175 conditioning plots, 37–39 conﬁrmatory factor analysis, 88 contingency tables, 104 continuous variables, 23–24 convex hull method, 22–23 correlation coefﬁcients, 6–7, 22 correspondence analysis, 104–112 applications of, 109–112 multidimensional scaling and, 91–114 principal components analysis and, 104

217

218

Index

covariances, 3, 5–6, 43–46, 69, 143. See speciﬁc methods cross-validation estimate, 153 data mining, 13 data types, 1–4 dendrograms, 117, 121 density estimation, 29. See also scatterplots depression, study of, 164–167, 191 discriminant function analysis, 142–156 assessment of, 146 Fisher linear discriminant, 142–146, 151 linear discriminant functions, 142–146, 151 plug-in estimates, 146 dissimilarity, 91, 118–123 distances, measures of chi-squared distance, 104 covariance matrix and, 69 deﬁned, 7–9 Euclidean, 91, 94 generalized distance, 10 non-Euclidean, 98 dropouts classiﬁcation of, 196 in longitudinal data, 190–198 drug usage, studies of, 82–85 economic theory, 41 Egyptian skull data, 137, 151 eigenvalues, 43–44, 46, 95 EM algorithm, 130 equal mean vectors, hypothesis of, 147 error sum-of-squares criterion (ESS), 136 Euclidean distances, 7, 91, 94, 105, 108 evolutionary trees, 117 exoplanet analysis, 130 expected value, deﬁned, 4 F-statistics, 148 factor analysis common factors, 65–68 communalities and, 68 criticism of, 72, 88 degrees of freedom, 70 deriving factor scores, 76 examples of, 70–76 factor loadings, 66 factor rotation, 71–76

interpretation and, 73 iterative approach, 69 k-factor model, 67, 69 latent variables, 65 manifest variables, 65, 68 mathematics of, 66 maximum likelihood approach, 69 numbers of factors, 69 oblimin rotation, 75 oblique rotation, 74 orthogonal rotation, 74 principal components analysis, 68, 85–88 promax rotation, 75 quartimax rotation, 75 rotational indeterminacy, 76 types of rotation, 74 varimax rotation, 75 fence, elliptical, 25–26 ﬁnite mixture densities, 134 Fisher linear discriminant function, 142–146, 151 graphical procedures, 16–40 bivariate boxplots, 25–29 chiplots, 23–25 clusters and, 29–32 density estimates, 29 outliers. See outliers scatterplots. See scatterplots group average clustering, 118–119 grouped multivariate data, 137–156 Fisher linear discriminant, 142–146 Hotelling T2 test, 137–142 MANOVA and, 147–149 t tests, 137, 139, 141 two-group analysis, 137–146, 149 head measurements, 162–164 Heywood case, 69 hierarchical classiﬁcation, 115. See agglomerative hierarchial clustering hinge, elliptical, 25–26 histograms, 16 Hodgkin’s disease, 111–112 horseshoe effect, 112 Hottelling T2 test, 137–142

Index imputation, 3–4 independence, 1, 24–25, 174. See speciﬁc tests independent components analysis, 61 intelligence, estimate of, 70–71 interpretation, 53, 55, 73 intraclass correlation, 175 jittering, 19–20 Jolliffe rule, 47 k-means clustering, 123–128 Kaiser rule, 47 labelling, of components, 53 Lagrange multipliers, 43 latent variables, 65, 197 Lawley-Hotelling trace, 148 leave-one-out method, 146, 153 life expectancies, 77 linear discriminant function, 142–146 linear mixed effects models, 174–190 linear regression, 19–21 local independence assumption, 174 locally weighted regression, 21 log-eigenvalue diagram, 47 logistic discrimination, 146 long form, 176 longitudinal data, 171, 190–198 low-dimensional representation, 97 lowest ﬁt, 21 Mahalanobis distances, 102 manifest variables, 65 MANOVA technique, 147–149 map, 91. See also scatterplot maximum likelihood approach, 69, 70, 77 MDS. See multidimensional scaling means, deﬁned, 4 medical studies, 134 minimum volume ellipsoid, 56 missing-data problem, 3 model-based clustering, 128–134 modelling process, 15 Monte Carlo method, 4 multicenter design, 198 multidimensional scaling (MDS), 93–104, 94

classical, 96–104 examples of, 96–104 horseshoe effect, 112 mathematical methods, 94 principal components and, 113 multiple correlation coefﬁcient, 159 multiple regression, 157–160 multivariate analysis, 9 aims of, 13–15 complete cases, 3 example of, 2 F-statistics, 148 graphical procedures, 16–40 grouped multivariate data, 137–156 MANOVA technique, 147–149 missing-data problem, 3 multivariable methods, 157 multivariate data, 1–15 normal distribution, 9–13 normality and, 9–13, 149 summary statistics for, 4–9 test statistics for, 148 See also speciﬁc topics noise, 1, 19 non-linear models, 158 non-normal distributions, 146 normal distributions, 9–13 normal probability plot, 10 normality, assumption of, 76 normalization constraint, 49 oblimin rotation, 75 ordinal data, 2 outliers, 29, 51 correlation coefﬁcient and, 22 fence ellipse, 25 hinge ellipse, 25 minimum volume ellipsoid, 56 robust estimators and, 25–26 scatterplots and, 22 Pearson coefﬁcient, 7 Pillai trace, 148 plug-in estimates, 146 point density, 29 polynomial ﬁtting, 21 pottery, analysis of, 123–124

219

220

Index

principal components analysis, 41–64, 97 air pollution studies, 49–61 algebraic basics of, 42–49 application of, 41, 48–49 basic aim of, 41 of bivariate data, 48–49 calculating, 47–48 correspondence analysis, 104 factor analysis, 68, 85–88 introduction of, 61 Lagrange multipliers, 43 modern competitors to, 61 multidimensional scaling, 113 number of components, 46–47 rescaling, 45–46 rotation techniques, 76 probability plotting, 9–10 probability-probability plot, 9–10 projection pursuit method, 61 promax rotation, 75 proximity matrix, 91 quadratic discrimination function, 146 quadratic maximization, 75 quantile-quantile plot, 9–10 quartimax rotation, 75–77 random effects, 189 random intercept model, 174–175 random scatter, 24 ranking, 41 regularized discriminant analysis, 146 reiﬁcation, 53 repeated measures data, 171–199 restricted maximum likelihood, 176 robust estimation, 22, 25–26 rotation techniques, 75 Roy greatest root, 148 R statistical software bivbox function, 27 bivden function, 30 bkde2D function, 32, 40 chiplot function, 23–25, 149 coplot function, 37 cor function, 7 cov.mve function, 60 data frames in, 208–210 discrim function, 151 dist function, 7, 96

elementary commands, 200 graphical procedures, 16 KernSmooth library, 32, 40 lattice library, 36 lda function, 144 list objects in, 207 lme function, 176 logical expressions, 205–207 lqs library, 60 MASS library, 144 matrices in, 203–205 mvrnorm function, 10 pairs function, 33 predict function, 146 random.effects function, 187 rep function, 202 resid function, 187 strings in, 201 vectors in, 201 wireframe function, 40 See also speciﬁc functions, topics Sagan, Carl, 16 scatterplots, 91 chi-plots and, 24 continuous variables and, 23 convex hull, 22–23 density estimates and, 29–30 extra variables, 32–33 jittering and, 20 lowest ﬁt, 21 maps and, 91–92 matrix for, 17–29, 33–35 outliers, 22 polynomial ﬁtting and, 21 representing variables, 32–33 xy scatterplots, 17–29 scientiﬁc method, 14–15 Scott-Simon approach, 128 scree diagram, 47, 69 similarity measure, 91 simple structure, 73 single linkage, 118, 134 skulls, study of, 99, 137, 146 smoking, studies of, 109–111 smooth functions, 21–22 speciﬁc variance, 66–67 S-PLUS statistical software apply function, 4, 5

Index bivbox function, 27 bivden function, 30 chiplot function, 25, 149 click-and-point features, 33 cloud function, 36 coplot function, 37 cor function, 7 cov.mve function, 60 data frames in, 208–210 discrim function in, 144 dist function, 7, 96 elementary commands, 200 graphical procedures, 16 group effect in, 185 lda function, 144, 151 list objects in, 207 lme function, 176 logical expressions, 205–207 MASS library, 144 matrices in, 203–205 mean function, 4 pairs function, 33 predict function, 146 random.effects function, 187 rep function, 202 resid function, 187

221

rmvnorm function, 10 strings in, 201 var function, 5 vectors in, 201 See also speciﬁc functions, topics stem-and-leaf plots, 16 structural relationships, 44 Student t-test, 137, 139 sum of squares constraint, 43 t tests, 137, 139, 141. See also Hotelling T2 test three-dimensional plots, 35–36 trace, minimization of, 130 trellis graphics, 37–39 two-group analysis, 137–146, 148, 149 unique variance, 67 variance, analysis of, 5, 66–67, 137–156. See speciﬁc methods, tests variance component model, 175 variance-covariance matrix, 6 varimax rotation, 75–77 Wilks determinantal ratio, 148